Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, recently a delegation of Khalistani Americans led by Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulkah, President of the Council of Khalistan, testified before the United Nations Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, which was meeting in New York City. While there, they exposed the massive human rights violations by the Indian Government in Punjab, Khalistan. Joining Dr. Aulakh were Dr. Paramjit Singh Ajrawat of Maryland, Professor Gurcharan Singh of Marymount University in New York, Judge Mewa Singh of New Jersey, and Malkiat Singh Heir, also of New Jersey. The Working Group revealed that it has requested permission to visit India and has been denied. The same thing has happened to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others who have tried to conduct an independent human rights investigation. India obviously has plenty to hide. Even though the government in Punjab is not led by the Sikh Akali Dal political party, there have still been over 150 atrocities documented since they formed a coalition with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 1997. It is ironic that while the Khalistani delegation was testifying, the news broke that Rajiv Singh Randhawa, a witness who identified the police officers who kidnapped human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, was himself abducted by the police. A few days later, Japal Singh Dhillon, who worked with Mr. Khalra on his report exposing the mass cremations of Sikhs by the Indian Government, was also arrested on a false charge. Shortly after that, his lawyer, Daljit Singh Rajput, was picked up on the same false charge. The July 9-15, 1998 issue of Awaze Qaum reported that the police picked up Kashmira Singh of the village of Khudial Kalan on the pretext that they were investigating a theft. They then tortured Kashmira Singh for 15 days. They rolled logs over his legs until he couldn't walk. They submerged him in a tub of water. They slashed his thighs with razor blades and stuffed hot peppers into his wounds. Then the police claimed that Kashmira Singh had escaped, a bad sign that he has most likely been murdered by the police. In addition, they arrested his father and brother, who I understand are also being subjected to torture. How can a country that systematically violates basic human rights like this call itself democratic? It is clear from these events that there is no place for Sikhs or other minorities within India's borders. As Dr. Aulakh has said, ``police abuses including illegal detentions, forced abductions, use of torture, rape, and murder have continued much like they have continued since 1984. What is worse is that there has been active collusion by the Akali Government with police forces to cover up past abuses and to distract from present abuses. Without effective international pressure, the whereabouts of the abductees will never be determined and every day, other innocent people will join the ranks of the disappeared.'' With nuclear weapons involved in South Asia, these terrible violations of basic human rights are even more dangerous to the entire world. I am inserting Dr. Aulakh's testimony and the Council of Khalistan's press release into the Record for the information of my colleagues. I urge them to read it carefully. It is frightening, but quite informative. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Testimony of Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President, Council of Khalistan before the 54th Session of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances Ladies and Gentlemen: Let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity to speak to the Working Group again this year. I would like to update you on disappearances in the Sikh homeland, Punjab, Khalistan. When I reported to you last year, the Sikh homeland was in a deplorable situation. It has not improved. If anything, it has been made worse by the presence of Indian missiles deployed in Punjab after its recent nuclear tests. This deployment puts Sikh lives at risk to preserve those of the ruling class. The BJP has shown an openly hegemonic agenda towards its South Asian neighbors. There is no doubt that if war breaks out between India and Pakistan, Punjab will be the battleground, as it was for the last three wars fought between the two nations and once again, Sikhs will bear the most casualties in this nuclear holocaust. I would like to thank the many committed people whose efforts have helped us develop this information to present to you. My statement is more a result of their efforts than my own. The human-rights situation in Punjab, Khalistan remains as bad as it ever was. The renowned journalist and writer Kushwant Singh has said last May that he personally approved of the police method of simply grabbing Sikh youth and shooting them in the head without bothering with the courts, he stated, and I quote, ``I supported the police in its extra-judicial killings.'' Former Speaker of the Indian Parliament Balram Jakhar said, ``If we have to kill a million Sikhs to preserve India's territorial integrity, so be it.'' In an interview broadcast by NPR on August 11, 1997, Narinder Singh, identified as a spokesman for the Golden Temple, said that ``The Indian government all the time they boast that they're democratic, they're secular, but they have nothing to do with a democracy, they have nothing to do with a secularism. They try to crush Sikhs just to please the majority.'' On May 12, the chairman of India's National Human Rights Commission reported that the NHRC had received 38,000 cases in the last few months. This tells us the magnitude of human- rights violations in India because only a small fraction of cases are reported due to intimidation by the police, poverty, and illiteracy. What terrifies the Sikh community about this dangerous scenario is the ease by which past Indian Governments have been able to make Sikhs disappear and kill them with impunity. Since 1984, an estimated quarter million Sikhs have lost their lives, but those responsible, men like K.P.S. Gill, are applauded in India as superheroes. It has been proven in the ballot box that when a political party, be it BJP or Congress, targets a minority community such as Muslims, Christians, or Sikhs, they win elections. Information on the extent of disappearances and extrajudicial killings is by no means complete, but new cases continue to come to light. According to the July 9-15 issue of Awaze Qaum, the police picked up Kashmira Singh of the village of Khudal Kalan on the pretext of investigating a theft. They tortured him by rolling logs over his legs, submerging him in a tub of water, cutting his thighs with a blade and stuffing red peppers into the cuts. For 15 days they tortured him. When his family and villagers came to see him, he could not walk. Then the police claimed that Kashmira Singh had escaped from the police station and they arrested his father and a minor brother. They, too, are being tortured, but they are so poor that they can not even go to court. The people of the village are afraid that Kashmira Singh was killed during the torture and that his body was disposed of as usual, another case of disappearance. Keep in mind that Kashmira Singh is not a terrorist, the young man picked up on suspicion of theft, and he had never been formally charged. In the July 10 issue of India West, it was reported that the National Human Rights Commission asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the abduction of a journalist named Avtar Singh Mandar by the Punjab police. Mr. Mandar was a correspondent for the Punjabi daily Ajit who was abducted from his house in Jalandhar in 1992. His whereabouts remain unknown. This is just another typical case. Recent reports show that a police official named Swaran Singh, known as Ghotna after a brutal type of torture he regularly employs, tortured Gurdev Singh Kaunke, the former Jathedar of the Akal Takht, and finally murdered him by tearing him in half. The next day, the government announced that Jathedar Kaunke had escaped from police custody. This is a typical disappearance. You are all aware of the case of Jaswant Singh Khalra. Mr. Khalra has done accurate and detailed work regarding the disappearances and genocide. His findings are extremely useful in understanding the extent of State repression of Sikhs. For his work, Mr. Khalra was abducted by police from his residence in Amritsar on September 6, 1995. A few days earlier, Tarn Taran SSP Ajit Sandhu told Mr. Khalra, ``We made 25,000 disappear. It would not be hard to make one more disappear.'' The police subsequently murdered him, according to a witness, but they have never acknowledged his death. Amnesty International issued a report on April 27 entitled A Mockery of Justice: The Disappearance of Jaswant Singh Khalra. In this report, Amnesty International noted that ``Khalra had been part of a campaign to highlight the plight of hundreds of people (Sikhs) who disappeared after being arrested by the Punjab police during the 1980s and early 1990s. Those who now seek to defend his rights are being threatened and witnesses are being intimidated.'' One example of this intimidation is a former police officer named Kuldip Singh. Chandigarh-based journalist Sukhbir Singh Osan reported in The Hitvada that Kuldip Singh heard the police murder Jaswant Singh Khalra at the Chhabal police station on October 27, 1995. Like so many of the innocent Sikhs whose disappearances he reported on, Khalra's body was thrown into the Harike canal. Here is how Kuldip Singh described the killing: ``He was made to stand, thrashed and pushed onto the ground. His legs were stretched apart more than 180 degrees. Seven policemen kicked him in the abdomen and chest. Save me. Please give me some water, he cried. As I was about to fetch some water, I heard two shots. I ran back into the room and he was bleeding profusely. He had stopped breathing.'' This is what happens to someone when he tries to expose India's brutal policy of disappearances and mass cremations. According to Indian Express, Kuldip Singh told the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that the brutal former Director General of Police, K.P.S. Gill, was involved in the Khalra kidnapping and murder. Kuldip Singh states that he was present when Gill met with Mr. Khalra just days before his death. The meeting took place at the home of Ajit Sandhu, who committed suicide when the Supreme Court of India ordered him indicted along with eight other officers for the Khalra kidnapping. When Khalra and several police officers were riding back to the police station, according to Kuldip Singh, Satnam Singh, the SHO of the Chhabal station, told Mr. Khalra that ``if you agree to Gill, you will be spared.'' The Coordination Committee for Disappearances in Punjab, a human-rights group from Punjab, has demanded that CBI file charges against Gill for his involvement in the abduction and murder of Mr. Khalra. After Kuldip Singh's testimony but before it became public, the government filed false charges that Mr. Khalra's widow, Paramjit Kaur Khalra, tried to bride Kuldip Singh. This was an effort to discredit Kuldip Singh's testimony and undermine Mrs. Khalra's case against the government. Even the Punjab DGP said that the matter was investigated by the crime branch, which found the case untenable. Kuldip Singh is now under the protection of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) because he fears liquidation by officials of the Punjab police. Unfortunately, the Khalra kidnapping is typical practice by Indian security forces. Lawyers, journalists, and rights activists have been made to disappear to instill a fear psychosis among the people. According to The Hitvada, at least one journalist received a phone call warning him that ``it is dangerous to report against the government.'' The lawyer for Mr. Khalra's widow was subjected to an intimidation attempt in a courtroom in front of a judge and his tires were slashed. Mr. Sodhi, a lawyer from Ropar who was representing accused Sikh militants in courts, was abducted along with his wife and 18-month-old child. They went into the police station and never returned. Police dumped their bodies in the canal and falsely blamed the killings on militants. Khalra found that at least 25,000 cases of cremating ``unidentified'' bodies have been recorded in various municipal cremation grounds throughout Punjab. Khalra's team found that in the Patti cremation grounds, a total of 538 bodies were brought to the cremation ground by police between 1991 and October of 1994. 10 different police stations were bringing bodies to be burned. Officials at the cremation ground would describe that on some days 2 bodies would be brought, on other days 10 bodies would be brought. Often, more than one body was burned with a single allotment of wood. Last year I gave the Working Group a preliminary list of 4,694 Sikhs who have been in Indian police or security force custody, some going as far back as 1981. Despite their deaths being reported by Indian authorities, in virtually every case, the body has not been released to the families, no positive identification has been made of the deceased, post- mortem examinations have not been conducted and no death certificate has been issued. In those case where post-mortem examinations were conducted, the identification of the victim is always listed as ``unidentified.'' It is very important to note that because bodies are not returned, and no valid death certificate is ever issued, there is no confirmation that Sikhs who are reportedly killed are actually dead. These Sikhs must be considered disappeared until they can be positively identified as being killed. Even with more recent disappearances there is an additional alarming trend, police regularly deny picking up an individual in the first place thereby bypassing the judicial system altogether. Sikh families are left with the fear and frustration of having their loved ones very abduction denied. The patterns of these abductions are virtually the same wherever they occur in Punjab, Khalistan. Sikhs are either arrested openly, or a special squad is dispatched which raids the person's residence in the middle of the night. The person is handcuffed and taken to normal police headquarters or special interrogation centers set up in the 80's for the sole purpose of torture. Police methods include: Rolling heavy wooden or iron rods along the victim's thighs rupturing the muscles. Electrical shocks in sensitive areas, including genitalia. Rape if the victim is female. Hanging the victim upside down or by the hands until consciousness is lost. Beating at the bottom of the victim's feet with hard blunt wooden staffs, and thick leather cudgels. Stretching the victim's limbs. Inserting an iron bar in the rectum and heating it up electrically. This causes tremendous pain and damage, but shows no exterior evidence of torture. As you know, a battery of Draconian laws were issued throughout the 80's which, in addition to the cash bounty system, give the security forces shoot-to-kill powers with immunity from prosecution. These laws also give security forces broad detention powers. In a much heralded declaration in May of 1995, the Indian government announced that the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) has not been renewed and that it is no longer the law of the land. This is plain wrong. As reported by Human Rights Watch's 1996 annual report, ``6,000 prisoners remain under TADA custody.'' But that number may be in the tens of thousands. Amnesty International, in its 1996 report, stated ``Legislation allowing detention without charge or trial remained in force in India. . . . many of those detained under its provisions remained in custody.'' Furthermore, TADA revocation only applies to crimes committed after the revocation date. As long as the police allege that the accused committed a crime BEFORE the revocation date, which they can do without any evidence to back their claim, TADA methods can be used to detain the accused indefinitely. For all intents and purposes, TADA remains in effect. Today, there are thousands of detainees languishing in jails throughout India who are officially declared missing or escaped, but are in fact in detention. Exact estimates are impossible to ascertain, but the number of Sikhs may be 20,000. This does not include the tens of thousands of Muslims, Assamese, Manipuris and other minorities detained under TADA. Since 1993, India has also defended its human rights record by pointing to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC); a Commission set up under pressure by the international community. Like any effective organization, the NHRC cannot operate without power, resources and credibility. The NHRC has none of these attributes. As I had mentioned in my testimony last year, the NHRC has no power to directly investigate human rights violations and no jurisdiction over violations committed by the security and military forces. The NHRC has no power to prosecute violators or compensate victims. Also, there is a one-year statute of limitations based on when the crime was committed. Thus, you could only bring forth killings within a year after they allegedly occurred. Therefore, the vast majority of Sikh killings, disappearances, rape and other violations cannot even be brought before the NHRC! Cases filed with the NHRC are often ignored by the NHRC itself, even when human rights activists file them. In my previous report to you, I reported on how the co-producer of the video documentary ``Disappearances in Punjab'', Ram Narayan Kumar was illegally detained at Delhi airport by the Indian security and intelligence personnel on January 19 and 20, 1997. The complaint for the illegal detention that Mr. Kumar sent to NHRC and India's Union Home Minister have not been acknowledged by either party. He stated in a letter he wrote to me last year that he intended to travel to Punjab, Kashmir and other north eastern regions where, and I quote, ``the armed forces have for decades followed a systematic policy of terror to combat secessionist movements.'' He also stated, quote, ``Frankly I am worried about my safety when I travel in these regions . . . I am aware that a man like Jaswant Singh Khalra, who assisted me with my researches in Punjab, has simply disappeared. Personally too, during my time in Punjab, I experienced intimidation, including manhandling by unidentified people in Amritsar.'' Given Mr. Kumar's misgivings about the ability of the NHRC to protect him, it is unrealistic to expect Sikhs to bring cases of human rights violations to the NHRC. Given the statute of limitations imposed, they are barred from doing so anyway. In the year since I first reported to the Working Group on the NHRC's ineffectiveness, the NHRC has received an estimated 38,000 complaints throughout India in just the past few months. The NHRC Chairman, Justice Venkatchaliah, has echoed the very same problems regarding the effectiveness of the NHRC. The NHRC Chairman also strongly objected to the fact that India continues to bar international human rights groups like Amnesty International, Asia Watch and others from being allowed to visit troubled regions like Punjab. I mentioned last year that with the Akali party election victory in the state of Punjab last February, there was hope that finally peace, stability and a measure of democracy would return to the Sikh homeland. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. In fact, police abuses including illegal detentions, forced abductions, use of torture, rape and murder have continued much like they have continued since 1984. What is worse is that there has been active collusion by the Akali Government with police forces to cover up past abuses and to distract from present abuses. The result is that the Akali Government does not merely condone abductions and disappearances by Punjab security personnel, the Government actively shields such conduct from public scrutiny by reminding the world that the government is run by an indigenous Sikh party (the Akalis) and they therefore must be respectful of the human rights of their own people. Yet the Chief Minister of Punjab, Parkash Singh Badal, refuses to let his government investigate these disappearances and mass cremations. He proudly boasts that his government has not taken action against any police officer. Instead, former Supreme Court Justice Kuldip Singh, chairman of the World Sikh Council, was forced to appoint a Peoples' Commission to investigate these atrocities. According to Mr. Jaijee, the government has spent Rs. 2 crore (20 million rupees) for lawyers to protect these brutal police officers. The Peoples' Commission is a response to the ineffectiveness of the NHRC, the refusal of the Akali state government to investigate abuses, and the active suppression of evidence gathering by Indian and Punjab security forces. The members of the Peoples Commission have impeccable credentials. All are former jurists. The People's Commission is a response to the failure of Indian State terrorism. It must be nurtured and supported by the international community. If the People's Commission is successful in documenting and broadcasting the truth of the last 14 years, it will serve as an example of a peaceful and effective response to state violence. The model of the People's Commission can be applied to other situations throughout the world where bloody conflict is the norm instead of the exception. Unfortunately, the Akali state government continues to resist the People's Commission. Instead, the state government has given into temptation and used the police and security forces much like previous state governments, to eliminate any and all opposition to their rule; including political opposition. I have enclosed a partial list of atrocities that lists almost 150 atrocities, including several disappearances, in Punjab since the Akalis took power in March 1997. I had mentioned and submitted last year to the Working Group a letter written by a group of respected human-rights activists last year states that 50,000 cash bounties were disbursed to Punjab police for killing Sikhs between 1991 and 1993. The figure does not include paramilitary and vigilante force killings. Some of the militants allegedly killed by police have appeared before the Punjab and Haryana High Court requesting protection from the police. The letter rightly asks, and I quote, ``If these dead men are alive, who have the police killed?'' The letter cites evidence from human-rights groups and the national press that 50,000 Sikhs disappeared in the state in 1994 alone. The Indian government has murdered more than 250,000 Sikhs since 1984 according to the book, The Politics of Genocide, by the convenor of the Movement Against State Repression, Inderjit Singh Jaijee which draws its figure from the Punjab State Magistracy. It is my fervent hope, a hope shared by Sikhs throughout the world, that the work of the People's Commission will account for every last person killed in this last decade and a half. It will be the first step in a long road to bring those responsible to account for their crimes. In light of these facts, I would respectfully submit the following recommendations for the working group to consider: Recommendations Recommendation 1 The Working Group should recommend the long-term presence of international human rights monitors in Punjab, Khalistan. In addition to UN Organs, groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch/Asia and other international groups must be allowed to operate freely throughout Khalistan. Domestic institutions alone cannot deal with the human rights crisis plaguing the Sikh homeland. Neither the courts, the NHRC or the Punjab state government is willing to begin the arduous task of surveying 13,000 villages throughout Punjab and documenting the quarter million victims of State terror. An added problem is the vexing question of what happens when the human rights workers leave? No one will talk to Amnesty International or the appropriate UN organ if they know that they will be gone next week. Although Amnesty was recently allowed to operate in other parts of India, they have been denied access to Punjab since 1978. Until there is a permanent and pervasive presence of international monitors throughout Punjab, who will be there until all of the facts of the genocide are collected, the fear of Indian government retaliation will be too great to yield an accurate picture of the death toll. Recommendation 2 The Working Group should encourage internationally monitored investigation of public crematoriums throughout Punjab, as it will likely bring to resolution many of the disappearances. As far as we can determine, virtually none of the individuals named in the list I gave the Working Group last year has been released. A year later, this is still the case. Although the police allege that these persons were killed, no bodies have been returned, no identification has been verified and no valid death certificate has been issued. It is highly likely that many of them were cremated as unidentified by the Indian police. A thorough investigation of all public crematoriums throughout Khalistan will provide a final, albeit tragic, resolution as to what actually happened to the tens of thousands of Sikhs who were taken by police and never seen again. Recommendation 3 The Working Group should urge India to dismiss all pending cases under TADA. Internationally monitored investigations should be made of detention centers throughout India to ensure that the tens of thousands of TADA detainees are released from custody. Despite India government claims to the contrary, TADA remains in effect. An immediate census should be conducted involving international monitors to ensure that detention center's throughout India no longer contain political and religious prisoners. Many Sikhs were taken to jails outside Punjab and are rotting there. Recommendation 4 The Working Group should recommend that Indian authorities cease abducting, harassing and murdering human rights activists and other Sikhs. The persons involved in the kidnapping and murder of Jaswant Singh Khalra and that of Jathedar Kaunke should be punished and the government should guarantee the safety of human-rights activists, monitors, all Sikhs, and all the other minority peoples. About two weeks ago, Jaspal Singh Dhillon, a human-rights activist, and four others were falsely charged with conspiracy to blow up a jail to free a Sikh militant. The police had filed an FIR (First Investigative Report) charging that Mr. Dhillon and the others were involved in a conspiracy to break into jail and alleged Sikh militants. No court magistrate has validated these charges by the police and when human-rights groups protested the charges, the police relented in their pursuit to arrest Mr. Dhillon and the others. However, the police shifted the very same charges to ten other Sikh youths, very young Sikh boys who would less capable for resisting police tactics. They are now in detention and it is extremely likely that they are being tortured. This is typical of the way the police concoct false cases against human-rights activists and any other Sikhs they want to harass. Recommendation 5 The Working Group should publicly support the work of the People's Commission and provide them with technical assistance in achieving the most comprehensive and objective investigation possible. The Working Group should acknowledge in its annual report the work of the People's Commission. This will not only provide much need international recognition of the Commission, but will make much harder for Indian security and government officials to harass or even kill those individuals involved in the very risky business required by the Commission's work. The Working Group should also provide technical assistance to the Commission so that the data they collect and the method of collection conforms to international standards of human rights documentation. Recommendation 6 The Working Group should recommend measured and appropriate sanctions against the Government of India until they comply with all of the international treaties and covenants regarding human rights to which they are signatories. The above recommendations do not resolve the core issues between Sikhs and the Indian Government which gave rise to these abuses, issues that boil down to the right of the Sikh nation to national self-determination. But they do help open Punjab, Khalistan to the international community. This must occur before any credible investigation regarding disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture and rape can begin. Only international pressure will stop the campaign, and only sanctions will yield the necessary pressure to make India act in accordance with international law. Only sanctions will force India to respect the human rights of the people it purports to govern. Without effective international pressure, the whereabouts of the abductees will never be determined and every day, other innocent people will join the ranks of the disappeared. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to change the appointment process for the Comptroller General and Deputy Comptroller General. These officials are now Presidential appointees even though they are part of the Legislative branch, not the Executive branch. Consistent with their status as Legislative branch officials, my bill provides for their appointment by the Congress. The bill would not alter in any way the independence and non-partisanship of these officials or of the agency they head, the General Accounting Office. Under current law, the Comptroller General is appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to a 15-year term of office. The law provides for a bipartisan, bicameral Congressional commission to recommend individuals to the President as potential appointees for Comptroller General. The commission is composed of the Speaker of the House, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, and the chairs and ranking minority members of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. The same commission, with the Comptroller General as an additional member, makes recommendations to the President for Deputy Comptroller General. When the General Accounting Office was created in 1921, the Comptroller General was made a Presidential appointee. This was because GAO's original functions were almost entirely ``executive'' in nature and, therefore, had to be vested in an ``officer of the United States'' appointed by the President. However, GAO's functions have completely changed since 1921. Over the years, its preeminent role as a Legislative branch agency providing direct support to Congress emerged. At the same time, its ``executive'' functions virtually disappeared. Indeed, the Supreme Court's 1986 decision in Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, held that GAO cannot perform ``executive'' functions. Mr. Speaker, the idea that Congress should appoint the leaders of its own Congressional ``watchdog'' agency is not new. During the mid 1970's, Senator Lee Metcalf and Congressman Jack Brooks sponsored legislation to provide for Congressional appointment of the Comptroller General. This legislation was not enacted due to concern that it could jeopardize GAO's ability to perform the limited ``executive'' functions it retained at that time. As a compromise, the current appointment process was enacted in 1980 to retain Presidential appointment but establish the bipartisan, bicameral Congressional commission to recommend names to the President. Congress would have made the Comptroller General a Congressional appointee in 1980 were it not for the lingering concerns about the agency ``executive'' functions. The Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Bowsher v. Synar laid these concerns to rest once and for all, and thereby removed the last vestige of the original rationale for Presidential appointment of the Comptroller General and Deputy Comptroller General. The time has come to complete the task Congress began years ago. GAO is now firmly established in law and practice as a Congressional support agency that Congress relies upon every day for a wide range of information and advice. It makes no more sense for the President to appoint the leaders of the GAO than it would for Congress to appoint the Director and Deputy Director of OMB. It is particularly incongruous that the President should appoint Congressional officials whose fundamental mission is to support oversight of the very branch of government that the President heads. As my predecessors recognized, Congress has a strong institutional interest in appointing the Comptroller General. Senator Metcalf described this as ``a congressional declaration of independence from the White House.'' Congressman Brooks said that it ``would go a long way toward restoring to Congress some of the power and prestige that have slipped away to the executive branch over the years.'' In addition to being sound in concept, changing the appointment process has become a practical necessity since the current process is broken. The term of the last Comptroller General, Charles A. Bowsher, expired on September 30, 1996. Thereafter, in accordance with the current law, the Congressional commission interviewed a number of candidates for Comptroller General and, by majority vote, recommended 3 names to the President. However, the President rejected the commission's recommendations out of hand and with no stated reasons. Unfortunately, the process now appears to be stalemated with no end in sight, and GAO has been without permanent leadership for over 1\1/2\ years. Moreover, the current process has never successfully led to the appointment of a Deputy Comptroller General. Due to a series of impasses involving different Congresses and Presidents spanning many years, Mr. Bowsher remained without a Deputy for his entire 15-year term of office. Finally, I want to reiterate that enactment of this bill will not affect the independence, non-partisanship, and objectivity of the GAO. These attributes are, of course, essential to maintaining the agency's credibility and, therefore, its usefulness to the Congress. It would be self-defeating for Congress to do anything to undercut them, and, indeed, the bill carefully preserves them. The bill retains the current Congressional commission now provided by law and makes it the appointing authority. This ensures bipartisan participation in the appointment process. The bill also retains the current provisions governing the terms of office of the Comptroller General and the Deputy and severely limiting the means and grounds for their removal from office. Mr. Speaker, I urge prompt action on this important legislation. The GAO provides invaluable assistance and support to the Congress. We need to provide GAO with the permanent leadership it needs to do its work and serve all of the Congress most effectively. I have attached a series of questions and answers that provide additional background. Questions and Answers on H.R. 4296 Q. What does the bill do? A. Current law provides for appointment of the Comptroller General and Deputy Comptroller General by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Under the current law, which was last amended in 1980, a bipartisan, bicameral Congressional commission recommends names to the President as potential appointees for Comptroller General and Deputy. The commission is composed of the Speaker of the House, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, and the chairs and ranking minority members of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. The commission must submit at least 3 names to the President for Comptroller General. While the President is expected to ``give great weight'' to the commission's recommendations, he is not bound by them. The President may request additional names, or he may nominate someone not recommended by the commission. The bill makes the existing bipartisan, bicameral Congressional commission the appointing authority for the comptroller General and the Deputy. Q. Why is the Comptroller General a Presidential appointee in the first place? A. When GAO was established in 1921, its core mission was to perform Executive branch auditing and accounting functions that were transferred to GAO from the Treasury Department. Under the Constitution, such ``executive'' functions can only be vested in an agency headed by an ``officer of the United States'' appointed in accordance with the Constitution's ``appointments cause.'' Therefore, the Comptroller General had to be a Presidential appointee. This is no longer the case since GAO no longer performs ``executive'' functions. It is now firmly established in law and practice that the Comptroller General and GAO are part of the Legislative branch and that they can perform only ``legislative'' functions in support of Congress. Q. Does shifting appointment of the Comptroller General from the President to Congress pose any legal problems? A. No. In 1977 testimony addressing Congressional involvement in the Comptroller General's appointment, a Justice Department official stated that--``so long as the Comptroller General is performing functions that are of a legislative nature such as investigating and disseminating information . . . it seems to us pretty clear that . . . his appointment may be handled in whatever manner Congress deems appropriate.'' There were concerns over changing the appointment process at that time since GAO still performed some ``executive'' functions. However, the Supreme Court subsequently held in Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986), that the Comptroller General could not constitutionally perform ``executive'' functions notwithstanding his appointment by the President. The Court reasoned that the statutory provisions governing removal of the Comptroller General, which vest removal authority in Congress instead of the President, prevented the Comptroller from being an ``officer of the United States'' and thereby performing ``executive'' functions regardless of how he was appointed. Thus, the Comptroller General's status as a Presidential appointee has no legal significance today. Q. Why change the Comptroller General appointment process now? A. There are three main reasons to change the appointment process: (1) The only reason for making the Comptroller General a Presidential appointee in the first place and the only reason Congress has retained the Presidential appointment thus far-- to preserve GAO's ability to perform ``executive'' functions--was eliminated by the Supreme Court's decision in Bowsher v. Synar. Following this decision, Congress enacted legislation repealing, modifying, or transferring to the Executive branch virtually all of GAO's remaining ``executive'' functions. Now is the first opportunity Congress has to complete the task by changing the appointment process. (2) Given GAO's role as Congress' ``watchdog'' agency over the Executive branch, it makes no sense for the President to appoint the Comptroller General and it is only natural to shift this responsibility to Congress. On a daily basis, GAO provides information and advice to Congress covering the full range of legislative and oversight issues that Congress faces. Given Congress' reliance on GAO and its close working relationship with GAO, Congress should appoint the head of this agency. Having the President continue to appoint the Comptroller General makes as much sense as it would for Congress to appoint the Director of OMB. It is particularly incongruous for the President to appoint the head of an agency whose exclusive mission is supporting Congressional oversight of the branch of government that the President heads. (3) The current appointment process is broken and needs repair. Following expiration of former Comptroller General Charles Bowsher's term on September 30, 1996, the Congressional commission was established as provided by law. Working on a bipartisan basis, the commission developed, screened, and interviewed a number of candidates for Comptroller General. By majority vote and in accordance with the current law, the commission recommended 3 names to the President. However, the President rejected the commission's recommendations out of hand and with no stated reasons. As a result, the appointment process appears to be stalemated with no end in sight and GAO has been without permanent leadership for well over 1\1/2\ years. Further, the current process has never led to the appointment of a Deputy Comptroller General. Due to a series of impasses involving different Congresses and Presidents spanning many years, Mr. Bowsher remained without a Deputy for his entire 15-year term of office. Q. Will making the Comptroller General a Congressional appointee detract from GAO's independence and non- partisanship? A. No. GAO's independence and non-partisanship are, of course, essential to maintaining the agency's credibility and, hence, its usefulness to the Congress. It would be foolish and self-defeating for Congress to do anything to undercut these attributes. There is no reason to think that eliminating the Presidential appointment would have this effect. The current commission process ensures bipartisan participation in the appointment. The Comptroller's fixed term of office, combined with the severe statutory limits on removal of the Comptroller, provide more than adequate assurance of independence. Q. Will making the Comptroller General a Congressional appointee politicize the appointment process? A. No. Congress has a strong institutional interest in making the Comptroller General a Congressional appointee that should transcend politics. In fact, the leading proponents of Congressional appointment of the Comptroller General have been prominent Democratic Members of Congress. In 1975, Senator Lee Metcalf, then a senior member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and Vice Chairman of the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, introduced legislation to provide for Congressional appointment of the Comptroller General as well as other Legislative branch officials. Senator Metcalf described his legislation as ``a congressional declaration of administrative independence from the White House'' and noted that ``there are compelling reasons from an institutional perspective why we should take a hard look at the manner in which [these officials] are appointed.'' He concluded that ``the time has come to provide for their appointment by and for the Congress of which they are a part.'' Congressman Jack Brooks, then Chairman of the Government Operations Committee, introduced similar legislation on the House side. Chairman Brooks also stressed the importance of his bill from an institutional perspective, noting that the bill ``would go a long way toward restoring to Congress some of the power and prestige that have slipped away to the executive branch over the years.'' He added: ``. . . The doctrine of separation of powers is basic to our system of government and Congress contributes to the weakening of that system when it permits the President to exercise authority in the legislative domain.'' When both GAO and the Justice Department resisted direct Congressional appointment of the Comptroller General based on the then-existing concerns about GAO's ability to retain ``executive'' functions, Chairman Brooks sought to require the President to appoint a Comptroller General from names recommended by the Congressional commission. GAO supported this approach, but Justice objected that even this limitation on the President's appointment authority would be unconstitutional. Chairman Brooks finally had to settle for the current process, whereby a Congressional commission submits nonbinding recommendations to the President but the President remains free to nominate whomever he wishes. Q. Since some other Congressional officials are appointed by the President, why not the Comptroller General? A. The Librarian of Congress probably needs to be a Presidential appointee since the Library performs ``executive'' functions under the copyright laws. Similarly, the Public Printer performs functions that could be considered ``executive'' in nature. One could question the current status of the Architect of the Capitol. In any event, however, the Architect's functions are not at all analogous to those of the Comptroller General and GAO. The Congressional agency that is most analogous to GAO is the Congressional Budget Office, whose head is appointed by Congress.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following: Ellis Island Medals of Honor Awards Ceremony--NECO Chairman William Denis Fugazy Leads Dramatic Ceremony Dedicatd to Late Medal Recipient, Eric Breindel and Linda Eastman McCartney Ellis Island, NY, May 9--Standing on the hallowed grounds of Ellis Island--the portal through which 17 million immigrants entered the United States--a cast of ethnic Americans who have made significant contributions to the life of this nation, among them Senator George Mitchell; New York Times photojournalist Dith Pran; College Football's All-Time Winningest Coach Eddie Robinson; and the U.S. Olympic Women's Hockey Team today were presented with the coveted Ellis Island Medal of Honor at an emotionally uplifting ceremony. NECO's annual medal ceremony and reception on Ellis Island in New York Harbor is the Nation's largest celebration of ethnic pride. This year's event was dedicated to the memory of Eric Breindel, a 1994 Ellis Island Medal recipient and Linda Eastman McCartney. Representing a rainbow of ethnic origins, this year's recipients received their awards in the shadow of the historic Great Hall, where the first footsteps were taken by the millions of immigrants who entered the U.S. in the latter part of the nineteenth century. ``Today we honor great ethnic Americans who, through their achievements and contributions, and in the spirit of their ethnic origins, have enriched this country and have become role models for future generations,'' said NECO Chairman William Denis Fugazy. ``In addition, we honor the immigrant experience--those who passed through this Great Hall decades ago, and the new immigrants who arrive on American soil seeking opportunity.'' Mr. Fugazy added, ``It doesn't matter how you got here or if you already were here. Ellis Island is a symbol of the freedom, diversity and opportunity-ingredients inherent in the fabric of this nation. Although many recipients have no familial ties to Ellis Island, their ancestors share similar histories of struggle and hope for a better life here.'' Established in 1986 by NECO, the Ellis Island Medals of Honor pay tribute to the ancestry groups that comprise America's unique cultural mosaic. To date, approximately 1000 ethnic American citizens and native Americans have received medals. NECO is the largest organization of its kind in the U.S. serving as an umbrella group for 250 ethnic organizations and whose mandate is to preserve ethnic diversity, promote ethnic and religious equality, tolerance and harmony, and to combat injustice, hatred and bigotry. Ellis Island Medal of Honor recipients are selected each year through a national nomination process. Screening committees from NECO's member organizations select the final nominees, who are then considered by the Board of Directors. 1998 Ellis Island Medal of Honor Recipients Anthony S. Abbate, Italian, Business Leader. Hon. Gary L. Ackerman, Eastern European, Member of Congress. William H. Adkins, African, Business Leader. Antigone Agris, Hellenic, Business Leader. Ace (Armando) Alagna, Italian, Publisher. John B. Alfieri, Esq., Italian, Attorney. John A. Allison IV, Scottish/Irish, Business Leader. John A. Amos, African, Actor/Playwright. Ernie Anastos, Hellenic, News Journalist/Author. Thomas V. Angott, Italian, Business Leader. Michael S. Ansari, Iranian, Business Leader. Norman R. Augustine, German, Business Leader/Educator. William J. Avery, Irish/Welsh, Business Leader. Farhad Azima, Persian, Business Leader. Brian M. Barefoot, English/German, Community Leader. Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, Armenian, Religious Leader. George D. Behrakis, Hellenic, Business Leader. Hon. Joseph W. Bellacosa, Italian, Judge of the Court of Appeals. Francis X. Bellotti, Italian, Attorney. Eric A. Benhamou, French, Business Leader. Michael Berry, Esq., Lebanese, Community Leader. Albert C. Bersticker, German, Corporate Executive. Elias Betzios, Hellenic, Community Leader. Thomas R. Bolling, Swedish, Business Leader. Frank J. Branchini, Irish/Italian, Business Leader. John G. Breen, Scottish/Irish, Business Leader. Duncan A. Bruce, Scottish, Author/Community Leader. Michael G. Cantonis, Hellenic, Business Leader. Louis J. Cappelli, Italian, Business Leader. Hon. Richard Conway Casey, Irish, United States District Court Judge. Robert B. Catell, Italian, Business Leader. William Cavanaugh III, Irish, Business Leader. Jerry D. Choate, English, Business/Community Leader. Christopher Christodoulu, Cypriot, Educator/Lecturer. Dr. Kenneth A. Ciongoli, Italian, Community Leader. E. Virgil Conway, Irish, Public Official. Dr. Takey Crist, Hellenic, Community Leader/Educator. Karen Davis, Swiss/German, Philanthropic Leader. Diane H. Dayson, African, Business Leader. Theodore Deikel, Russian, Business Leader. George J. Delaney, Irish, Business Leader. Hon. Gustave Diamond, Hellenic, Justice. Jim Donald, Irish, Business Leader. Lewis Robert Elias, M.D., Lenanese, Medical Practitioner. Victor Elmaleh, Moroccan, Business Leader. Pamela Fiori, Italian, Journalist. Brian T. Gilson, Norwegian/German/Italian, Business Leader. Richard H. Girgenti, Italian, Attorney. Bernice Gottlieb, Austrian/Hungarian, Advocate for Children. Charlie N. Hall, Sr., African, Labor Leader. James F. Hardymon, English, Business Leader. Derek C. Hathaway, English, Business/Community Leader. William Hetzler, German, Community Leader. John A. Holy, Slovak, Publisher. Vahakn S. Hovnanian, Armenian, Business/Community Leader. Darrell Edward Issa, Lebanese, Business Leader. Robert M. Johnson, Swedish/English, Business Leader. Mitchell J. Joseph, Italian, Business Leader. Thomas Peter Kazas, Hellenic, Business Leader. Hon. John F. Keenan, French Canadian/Irish, U.S. District Judge. Andrew Sokchu Kim, Korean, Business/Community Leader. A. Eugene Kohn, European, Architect. Alexander R. Koproski, Polish, Business/Community Leader. Haralambos S. Kostakopoulos, Ph.D., Hellenic, Business Leader. Thomas C. Kyrus, Cypriot, Business/Community Leader. Vincent V. LaBruna, DDS, Italian, Community Leader/ Educator. Lee Liu, Chinese, Business Leader. Dr. Pamela Loren, Argentinean/English, Business Leader. William Losapio, Italian, Business Leader. Alan Barry Lubin, Russian, Labor Leader/Educator. Leon Machiz, Russian, Business Leader. Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, English/Irish/French, Member of Congress. Joseph L. Mancino, Italian, Business Leader. Frank G. Mancuso, Italian, Business Leader. John Willard Marriott Jr., English, Business Leader. Anthony A. Massaro, Italian, Business Leader. Fernando Mateo, Hispanic, Community Leader. Joseph M. Mattone, Esq., Italian, Business Leader. Col. William Surles McArthur, Jr., Scottish, Astronaut. Linda Eastman McCartney, (Posthumous). Michael R. McCoy, Irish, Business Leader. Bryan M. McGuire, Irish, Business Leader. Josie Anderson McMillian, African, Labor Leader. James R. Mellor, English, Business Leader. Hon. Robert Menendez, Cuban, Member of Congress. Arthur L. Mercante, Italian, Community Leader. Lee Miglin, (Posthumous). Alan B. Miller, Russian, Business Leader. Hon. Patsy T. Mink, Japanese, Member of Congress. Hon. George Mitchell, Lebanese/Irish, Senator. Tita Scandalis Monti, Hellenic, Community Leader/ Philanthropist. William D. Moses, Syrian, Business/Community Leader. Thomas J. Murphy, Irish, Community Leader. Mary Murphy, Irish, Television Journalist. John Francis O'Brien, Irish/Italian, Business Leader. Cmdr. Timothy Stuart O'Leary, USN, Irish/Croat, Naval Officer. Harry J. Pappas, Hellenic, Business Leader. Carl F. Pascarella, Italian, Business Leader. Nicholas Anthony Penachio, Italian, Business Leader. James George Petheriotes, Hellenic, Community/Business Leader. William G. Poist, German, Business Leader. Dith Pran, Cambodian, Photojournalist/Lecturer. Leslie C. Quick, III, Irish, Business Leader. Bradford J. Race, Jr., Irish/English, Secretary to the Governor. John G. Rangos, Sr., Hellenic, Business Leader. Michael T. Reddy, Irish, Business Leader. Ronald K. Richey, Swedish/Scottish/Irish/German, Business Leader. P. Anthony Ridder, German/French, Business Leader. John J. Rigas, Hellenic, Business Leader. Eddie Robinson, African, College Football's All-Time Winningest Coach. Edward J. Robson, English, Business Leader. Steven A. Rosenberg, MD, PhD, Eastern European, Surgeon/ Scientist. Robert J. Rotatori, Esq., Italian, Attorney/Educator. Dr. John W. Ryan, Irish, Educator. Philip Adeeb Salem, MD, Lebanese, Educator/Research Scientist. Joseph D. Sargent, CLU, Irish/English, Business Leader. George D. Schwab, PH.D, Latvian, Foreign Policy Leader. Steven Seagal, French Canadian/Italian, Actor/producer. Tosano J. Simonetti, Italian, Business Leader. Amb. Richard Sklar, Russian/Hungarian, Ambassador to the

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I do not anticipate taking the whole 60 minutes, but I did think it was important to illuminate a few issues for my colleagues and for anybody in the country take might be paying attention. We have been investigating the illegal campaign contributions that have come into the Democrat National Committee and the Clinton-Gore Committee of 1996 for about a year now. One of the biggest problems we have had, Mr. Speaker, is that 94 people, 94 people, have either taken the Fifth Amendment or fled the country. Now, when I had the FBI director, Mr. Louie Freeh, before my committee not long ago, I asked him if he had ever seen anything of that magnitude, and the FBI director said, ``Well as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I have.'' And I said, ``Really? When was that?'' He said, ``When I was investigating organized crime in New York City.'' Now, during this past week, the Washington Post, on the Federal Page, for the first time of any major newspaper in the country listed everybody who has taken the Fifth Amendment or fled the country, and I commend them for that. The Washington Post is not a bastion of conservatism, as most people know, but the fact of the matter is, they have listed all these people and given a brief explanation as to why they have not testified before our committee or any committee of the Congress. I want to go through these real briefly for my colleagues and the American people, who have a right to know why people are leaving the country or taking the Fifth Amendment and not telling why these contributions came in from Communist China, from Macao, from Indonesia, from Egypt, from Taiwan and from South America. Now, this is very important, because these people who are giving contributions from other parts of the world are not doing it for their health. They are doing it because they want something from the United States. We just heard about the technology transfer that took place, giving China the ability to target more accurately American cities with their ICBM's and nuclear warheads. We also gave them MRVing technology, which allows them to put as many as three or four warheads on each rocket. That means that not just 18 cities are targeted here in the United States by the Communist Chinese Government and the Chinese communist Army, but 54 cities are possibly targeted at one time if we ever have a confrontation with them. That is a very, very sobering thought. Every man, woman and child in this country ought to be asking the question, was there a quid pro quo? Was there an exchange of contributions for technology? Was the Loral Company, headed by Mr. Schwartz, involved, and did the contributions he gave have anything to do with it? He was the largest single contributor to the Democrat National Committee and the Clinton Gore campaign. But let us get to the issue at hand. John Huang, the first person on this chart, he was born in China. He is a U.S. citizen, raised in Taiwan, and a former executive of the Lippo Group in Indonesia. He started out with the Worthen Bank in the United States, in Little Rock, Arkansas, and became a friend of the President of the United States. Mr. Huang met with the President and others at the White House ten times between June 21 and June 27, 1994, and, right after that, Mr. Web Hubbell, who was about to be indicted by a Federal grand jury, received $100,000 from the Lippo Group. Many people believe that was hush money, and that is one of the things we have been investigating. Shortly after this possible hush money was given to Mr. Hubbell, Mr. Huang, two weeks later, got a job over at the Commerce Department as Assistant Secretary of the Commerce Department, which was a very influential department, because they had a hand in determining technology transfers and other transfers that went to places like Communist China. Anyhow, Mr. Huang has taken the Fifth Amendment. His wife, Jane Huang, has taken the Fifth Amendment. Arief and Soraya Wiriadinata, they have left the country. They fled the country. Those people, he was a gardener over in Virginia, a gardener in Virginia, yet he gave $450,000 to the DNC. Now, I do not know how much gardeners make in other parts of the country, Mr. Speaker, but $450,000 from a man who is probably making $20,000 to $25,000 a year is a lot of money. It makes you wonder where that money came from. Soraya's father, Hashim Ning, was a business partner of Mochtar Riady and the Lippo Group in Indonesia, and he wired $500,000, which the couple used to make these $450,000 in contributions. Evidently they kept $50,000 of that. But that was obviously money that was laundered from Indonesia through the Wiriadinatas into the Democrat National Committee, and they fled the country. The next person on the list is Agus Setiawan. He was an another Lippo employee of Indonesia who worked with John Huang and donated $5,500 to the Federal Campaigns and Political Action Committees, which has all since been refunded by the Democrat National Committee because it was illegal. He fled the country. Pauline Kanchanalak, a business consultant from Thailand and a legal resident of the United States who was solicited by John Huang for donations, the DNC returned all of $253,000 she contributed, because they thought that money came from outside the United States as well, illegal contributions coming from abroad, for what reason we know not. She has fled the country. Duangnet Kronenberg, she is the sister-in-law of Pauline Kanchanalak. She donated $50,000 to the DNC on the day of a White House coffee that she attended in June 1996. She has taken the Fifth Amendment. Irene Wo, she worked for Johnny Chung's fax machine business. She has taken the Fifth Amendment. Na-chi ``Nancy'' Lee, an engineer at Chung's fax machine business who has allegedly solicited contributions from co-workers and reimbursed them, she has taken the Fifth Amendment. Yah Lin ``Charlie'' Trie, an American citizen and one of the first two suspects, along with Antonio Pan to be indicted on January 29, 1997, as a result of the Justice Department's Task Force Campaign Finance Investigation. Charlie Trie had a Chinese restaurant in Little Rock, Arkansas, was a close personal friend of the President of the United States, came to Washington without any experience whatsoever, and he gathered $640,000 for President Clinton's legal defense fund. All of that money was returned because it was in sequential money orders, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, with the same handwriting, but different names on them. So the head of the President's legal defense fund thought this was ``phony money'' coming from someplace it should not have, and it was returned. He also gave an additional $645,000 to the Democrat National Committee. Most of this money was from illegal foreign sources and the money was returned. He fled the country, but ultimately did come back and was indicted by the Justice Department, mainly because our committee proved beyond a reasonable doubt that his sister and her boyfriend and some others were laundering money for Charlie Trie, even though they did not know they were doing it. He used them as dupes to launder money coming from outside the country. Suma Ching Hai, leader of the Taiwan Buddhist sect whose members gave the bulk of $640,000 that Trie delivered to the President's legal defense fund, they refused to be interviewed. Wang Jun, a Communist Chinese arms dealer and chairman of the China International Trust and Investment Corporation, the largest Communist Chinese government-owned company. Wang Jun was invited to a February 6, 1996, coffee at the White House at the behest of Charlie Trie, and he refused to be interviewed. Ng Lap Seng, a Macao businessman and Trie's business partner, they jointly owned a Macao company which, according to the FBI, through which Ng wired Trie more than $900,000, we believe it was well over $1 million which went into New York and Virginia banks, part of which Trie donated to the Democrat National Committee. Now, listen to this. All these millions of dollars were coming from outside the United States, from all over the world. What did Communist China want in exchange for these campaign contributions being laundered erred to the DNC? Could it have been the Long Beach Naval Station in Long Beach, California, where the Chinese Shipping Company, which is owned by the Chinese communist government, wanted that whole facility? The DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the CIA both have concerns about the Chinese Communist Shipping Company having control of the Long Beach Naval Station, and they gave, we believe, millions of dollars through conduits into the United States of America. Johnny Chung, whom I will talk about in a minute, we know got $300,000 from the head of the aerospace company in Communist China to be laundered and given to the Democrat National Committee, and her father was the head of the Chinese Communist Army, the People's Republican Army in Communist China. Now, what did they want for that? Could it have been the technology transfer that allowed the Chinese communist military to be able to target American cities more accurately through a technology transfer that the President signed a waiver on? We need to know these things. That is why these people need to testify. But, unfortunately, 94 of them have fled the country or refused to testify or taken the Fifth Amendment. Ming Chen, general manager of a restaurant in Beijing owned by Ng Lap Seng. Ng Lap Seng is a man called Mr. Wu, who is a man I am going to talk about in just a minute. Mr. Wu, or Ng Lap Seng, reimbursed Ming Chen's wife for the checks she co-wrote to the DNC, thousands of dollars. Ming Chen's wife, Yuefang Chu, a resident of Gaithersburg. She testified before the Senate about conduit campaign contributions and has taken the fifth amendment. Stanley Ho, a Macao developer who gave $250,000 to a fund for the FDR Memorial. He refused to be interviewed. Antonio Pan, former Lippo executive who was indicted on charges related to illegal fund-raising in January of 1997. Pan allegedly received $80,000 in August 1996 from Mr. Wu, or Ng Lap Seng, in Macao and used some of the money to reimburse people he persuaded to write checks to the DNC. David Wang, one of the people we had before our committee, a California used car dealer. Wang is alleged to be one of Pan's straw donors through whom they ran these payments. He testified before our committee, along with Charlie Trie's sister and her boyfriend, and they all were conduits for campaign contributions. Daniel Wu, apparently another Pan straw donor. Wu is a Taiwan-based businessman. Mark Middleton, who worked at the White House, one of the President's close personal aides at this White House. He was a former Democrat fund-raiser and White House aid who left the administration in 1995 to pursue business deals with Asian businessmen, sometimes facilitated by Charlie Trie. I am going to talk about Mr. Middleton more in a minute. Mark Jimenez, a Miami computer entrepreneur and donor who made his largest contribution, $50,000, to the DNC after a February 6, 1996 coffee at the White House. He has taken the fifth amendment. Manlin Foung, Charlie Trie's sister, whom I have already talked about, who has admitted she was a conduit and whom we have immunized. Joseph Landon, romantically linked to Manlin Foung, he was involved in the $35,000 donation that Manlin Foung made, and he was immunized by us and explained why that conduit payment was made. Dia Maria Mapili, a longtime employee of Trie's Daihatsu International Trading Company. An indictment against Trie claims he ordered Mapili to destroy subpoenaed documents. She has taken the fifth amendment. Keshi Zhan worked for Trie and Ng as an office manager. He has taken the fifth amendment. James Riady. The Senate draft report on campaign finances accuses the Riady family of having a long-term relationship with the Communist Chinese intelligence agency. They are out of Indonesia. James Riady is an Indonesian who once lived legally in the United States, is the deputy chairman of the family's main business, the Lippo Group in Indonesia. The family, including its businesses and partners, donated more than $700,000 to the Democrats between 1991 and 1996, much of which has been returned. Riady has denied any wrongdoing in a written statement. He has refused to be interviewed. And the Riadys. James Riady was one of those that met at the White House, along with John Huang, to talk about the problems, we believe, of Webb Hubbell 10 times between June 21 and June 27, 1994. Shortly thereafter, $100,000 came from his company to Webb Hubbell who was about to be indicted. As I said before, many think that was hush money. Later, John Huang, an associate, employee of the Lippo Group and a friend of James Riady, got a job at the Commerce Department which was very influential in making decisions regarding foreign commerce. Mochtar Riady, James Riady's father and chairman of the Lippo Group, he refused to be interviewed. Stephen Riady, another son of Mochtar Riady. Stephen heads the Chinese operations of the Lippo Group, Lippo Limited, and the Hong Kong Chinese Bank. Roy Tirtadji, he is the managing director of the Lippo Group. He refused to be interviewed. Ken Hsui, a dual national. Hsui gave at least $300,000 to the Democrats, half soon after he attended a dinner at the Jefferson Hotel with Clinton and three other Asian businessmen. Eugene Wu, chairman of one of the largest corporations in Taiwan, Shin Kong Life Insurance. He attended the Jefferson Hotel dinner, and he refused to be interviewed. James Lin, Wu's brother-in-law and owner of a Taipei construction company. Lin attended the Jefferson Hotel dinner and gave money. John Muncy, executive vice president of the Lippo Group's Hong Kong Chinese Bank, refused to be interviewed. Webster Hubbell. He received hundreds of thousands of dollars, we believe as much as $700,000, and possibly more, between the time he left the White House and the time he was indicted by Mr. Starr and the grand jury. We believe that is, in large part, hush money. We believe that is a real possibility because he did very little work for this money. He has taken the fifth amendment and has been once again indicted by the grand jury and Mr. Starr. Hogen Fukunaga, a leader of the Honohana Sampogyo, a Japanese cult. In 1995, a follower wired $500,000 to Yogesh Gandhi, a man who tried to flee this country but was caught by the FBI at the airport before he left and went to New Delhi. This fellow refused to be interviewed. Yogesh Gandhi is a great-grandnephew of Mohandas Gandhi, he says, and a California businessman. Gandhi gave the DNC $320,000, which has since been returned. Again it was foreign money, illegally given. Ten Sioeng, an Indonesian-born businessman who travels on a Belize passport, suspected by committee members of working, along with his family, on behalf of the Chinese Government interests in the United States. Senate investigators have found that more than half of the $400,000 that Sioeng's family contributed to the Democratic National Committee in 1996 was transferred from a Hong Kong based firm. This is unbelievable, all this money coming from overseas. Jessica Elnitiarta, Sioeng's daughter, took the fifth amendment. I can go on and on and on. I think my friends and colleagues get the message. All of this money, millions and millions of dollars, was coming from foreign sources into the Democratic National Committee and all of these people, all 94 of them, have taken the fifth amendment. I want to give a graphic illustration of how some of this worked. Ng Lap Seng, better known as Mr. Wu, from Macao, came into the country on June 20, 1994, and he brought with him a suitcase with $175,000. Two days later, he met at the White House with Mark Middleton, one of the President's chief aides. Two days later, the same day, he went to a DNC dinner with the President and was seated at the number one table. He gives $175,000, and 2 days later, he is meeting at the White House and going to a presidential dinner. On July 31, 1994, he comes back in with another satchel, $42,000 later. One and 2 days later, he meets at the White House with Mark Middleton and went to the DNC birthday party for President Clinton, $42,000. On October 19, 1994, he came into the country with $25,000 in a suitcase or a bag. One day later, he met with Mark Middleton again at the White House. On February 15, 1995, he brought $12,000 into the country. How do we know he brought all this money in? Because he had to declare it if it was over $10,000. He brought in $12,000. One day later, he met with Mark Middleton at the White House, and he met with the President upstairs at the President's residence. February 18, 1996, he brought $19,000 into the country. One day later, he went to the President's Asian dinner at the Hay Adams Hotel. Mr. Trie, a friend of his, to whom he wired, we believe, well over a million dollars to New York and Virginia banks, gave $12,500 to the President's Asian dinner. Two days later, Ng met with Susan Levine at the White House. On August 17, 1996, just before the election, he brought $70,000 into the country. And 2 days later, he went to the President's 50th birthday party. Charlie Trie and his friends contributed over $100,000. My colleagues might say all this is coincidence, that nobody at the White House knew about this, they did not know this money was coming in from Ng Lap Seng and Macao, and possibly the Communist Chinese Government. But you have hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars coming in, and right after he comes in, he goes to the White House and meets with Mark Middleton or goes to some function with the President or at the DNC. It sure sounds suspicious. But, once again, we cannot get people to testify to get to the bottom of this. It is something that we cannot tolerate. I want to read to you a little bit about the Ng Lap Seng connection, Mr. Wu here. He is one of the most prominent people we are going to have on this list. He is a wealthy Macao businessman with strong ties to the Chinese Communist Government and has refused to be interviewed. A former DNC fund-raiser, his good friend and friend of the President, Charlie Trie, received $1.4 million in wire transfers from this fellow, in addition to all this money they brought in, $1.4 million in addition to this money, which is about $400,000 between 1994 and 1996. It became, in addition to all these contributions, Mr. Trie's main source of income, who had been appointed by President Clinton to a major international trading commission. Ng Lap Seng visited the White House 12 times during the time he was wiring hundreds of thousands of dollars to the United States as well as bringing all this money in. These funds enable Trie, his wife, and two of Trie's sham corporations, Daihatsu International Trading and San Kin Yip International Trading, to contribute $215,000 to the DNC. The President appointed Trie to the Commission on U.S. Pacific Trade and Investment Policy in April of 1996. Our committee released documents this year showing that Ng Lap Seng carried large amounts of cash, this money, totaling $330,000 and possibly more with him on trips to the United States between 1994 and 1996. Why do I say possibly more?. Because he only had to declare, I believe, the money he brought in over $10,000. So he may have come in several times in between here and met at the White House with money that did not exceed the $10,000 limit. The committee compared the dates of Ng's trips with his visits to the White House, as I just illustrated, to show that on five occasions when Ng arrived in the United States with cash, he visited the White House within 2 days of his arrival. The American people have the right to know the facts. The reason we have a right to know the facts is that strange things have happened. The Long Beach Naval Station, strategically located, that was closed down during the base closure bill that we passed here not long ago, a couple years ago, the Long Beach Naval Station is being given to the Chinese Communist shipping company. It is strategically located on the West Coast. Our Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency and the customs people have grave concerns about giving the Chinese Communist Government that whole facility because it is so large. The Chinese shipping company owned by the Chinese Communist Government, the People's Liberation Army over there, we know have brought thousands of AK-47s in to be given to street gangs in Los Angeles on their ships. Customs has a very difficult time policing all of that. Yet the President has been involved in a number of meetings trying to help the Chinese Government get the Long Beach Naval Station. Why is that? Why was the President involved in that? We wonder sometimes if there is any connection between all these contributions coming from the Far East and the President's decision to be involved in that. The Riady group and the Lippo Group, the President made the Utah Monument a national park. What is the significance of that? The largest clean-burning coal facility in the United States, billions and billions of dollars of clean-burning coal are in the Utah Monument. It could have been mined environmentally safely according to U.S. engineers. Who would benefit from turning that into a national park so you cannot mine there? The Riady group, the Lippo Group, and Indonesia has the largest clean-burning coal facility, mining facility, in southeast Asia. They were one of the largest contributors. Their hands are all over, all over these contributions coming in from Communist China, from Macao and from Indonesia. Could there be a connection there? We need to know. The American people have a right to know, but we do not know. These things are of grave concern to me because some of them involve our national security, as I talked to you about earlier, the technology transfer that allows the Communist Chinese to be able to more accurately target targets halfway around the world; i.e., American cities. These are things that we need to find out about. These are things the American people have a right to know. We have 94 people, 94 people that could shed light on this but have taken the fifth amendment or fled the country. That is a huge number. I would like to state one more time, FBI Director Freeh said the only time he had heard of anything like this was when he was investigating organized crime in New York, the John Gotti's and so forth. This is huge. The American people ought to be outraged because national security questions have been raised. These people can help us get to the bottom of it. The President of the United States, after this technology transfer took place, and I might add the President signed a waiver which okayed that after the Justice Department and the FBI had started investigation into the Loral Company which gave that technology to the Communist Chinese, and the FBI and the Justice Department told the White House that they did not think that a waiver should be signed because they were investigating whether or not national security had been breached or whether the law had been violated by the Loral Company, and Mr. Schwartz, the largest Democrat contributor and the largest contributor to the President's reelection committee, they did not think there should be a waiver signed. Yet the President, after the fact, signed that waiver, which weakened the Justice Department investigation of the possible case against the Loral Company and Mr. Schwartz. Why did that happen? We need to know. These people can testify to many of these issues. Yet, the President has not insisted that these people, many of whom worked at the White House, who were friends of his, testify before the Congress of the United States. When Ronald Reagan was President we had the Iran-Contra affair, and he did not hold back any documents. The White House has been unbelievably hard to get documents from relating to any of this. He insisted that his staff come down and testify. Nobody took the fifth amendment. Yet, we have 94 people who have taken the fifth or fled the country. There is a real contrast between the Reagan administration and the Clinton administration. National security questions need to be answered, commerce questions need to be answered, and the only person who can really force the issue is the President. He needs to tell these people to come and testify before our committee. I do not believe the President should be going to Communist China, especially after this technology transfer took place. We need to find the answer to these questions before he goes over there. But he is taking 1,250 people with him. He is going to go to Tiananmen Square, where they have a reception center. Members remember Tiananmen Square, where 9 years ago many young people were ground under tanks, and hundreds, possibly thousands, were murdered, and then many thousands later went into Communist gulags. We now know the Communist Chinese government is killing people in their prisons and harvesting their kidneys, livers, and hearts, and selling them around the world for $30,000 to $100,000 a crack. They are getting at least $60 million by killing people in prisons and giving their body parts for money around the world. Some of those people are probably these political prisoners who were at Tiananmen Square. We do not know. But all these things bother me a great deal. That is one of the reasons why I think the President should not be going to Communist China. My committee has been investigating this for over a year. I must tell my colleagues that I have a great sense of frustration, because every time we ask for documents, every time we try to get to the bottom of this, the White House throws up another stone wall. They will not give us documents. They will not let people testify, even people who have worked at the White House and are friends of the President. All I can say is the American people ought to ask, why? Why, Mr. President, are we not allowing people to testify? Why is the President not insisting that all of these friends of his come before the Congress of the United States and tell the truth? All we have to do is get the truth. Lincoln said, let the people know the facts and the country will be saved. We are talking about national security. We are talking about foreign entities, from South America to Egypt to southwest Asia, Macao, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, giving campaign contributions to the DNC through illegal conduits in this country. Why, Mr. President, did these things happen? I submit that the White House cannot be ignorant of all of this, because most of these people were going in and out of the White House on a regular basis, meeting with the President, getting their pictures taken with him, going to dinners, and raising funds for him. The American people have a right to know the facts. I hope the President of the United States will help us get the facts. If he does go to China, which I do not think he should, but if he does go to China, I hope he will ask the Chinese government to let our investigators in there. They will not let our investigators in there to talk to the Bank of China or to find out why these Communist Chinese contributions were coming into the United States, and from whom they were coming. They will not let us in there. So if the President is going over there, I think he ought to ask the President of China to work with us to get to the bottom of this. But I doubt that that will happen. I would like to end up by saying one more time, the American people have a right to know. As long as I am chairman of this committee, I am going to work my dead level best to get to the bottom of this so that they do have all the facts.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend two recent news articles for all Members' immediate personal review, and I want to thank the President of the Council of Khalistan, Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, for bringing them to my attention. The first article is from the May 30, 1998 edition of the India Tribune in which it actually says that U.S. economic sanctions on India could prove to be a blessing in disguise, and that India should ``push ahead with determination'' in developing its nuclear arsenal. The second article was a report by the Reuters news service on May 17, 1998, in which residents of a village near where the Indian government conducted its recent nuclear tests have been complaining about ``nose bleeds, skin and eye irritation, vomiting and loose bowels.'' These developments should be very disturbing to any Member who wants peace between India and Pakistan, and in the entire South Asian region. The fact that India is willing to subject its own citizens to nuclear fallout in the name of developing its nuclear arsenal speaks volumes about their real warring intentions. Indeed, the India Tribune encourages its country to not ``panic in the face of international furor but stay firm and continue to build up its nuclear weapons capability.'' Can there be any further doubt that India will have the capability of raining nuclear missiles down upon Pakistan soon? I think if my colleagues read these recent articles carefully, they will reach the same conclusion. India will soon have, if they do not have it already, that very capability even at the expense of harming its own citizens. Mr. Speaker, we must be very diligent that this region does not become the epicenter of a World War III-type nuclear conflict. The stakes could not be higher. I would like to enter the India Tribune and Reuters articles into the Congressional Record, and I strongly urge my colleagues to read them with the utmost gravity they deserve. Especially in light of the Rand Corporation's recent prediction that within a few years there will be a war between India and Pakistan. If so, that war could now include nuclear weapons. [From the India Tribune, May 30, 1998] Between the Lines--India Should Push Ahead With Determination (By Brahma Chellaney) The 24th Anniversary of the first nuclear test at Pokhran would have been another occasion to reflect on India's nuclear indecision. But exactly one week before the anniversary, the country shed its chronic ambivalence and consummated its long-held nuclear option. India unleashed its action with a vengeance, carrying out five nuclear tests in two days, unequivocally demonstrating its capability to manufacture the most modern nuclear weapons--thermonuclear, boosted fission and low-yield types. The nation has shown it has compact missile-deliverable nuclear warheads. Jawaharlal Nehru laid the foundation of India's nuclear programme. The Nehru Government set up the Atomic Energy Commission in 1948 to produce ``all the basic materials'' because of nuclear power's ``strategic nature''. Nehru had said even before assuming office that as long as the world was constituted on nuclear might, ``every country will have to develop and use the latest scientific devices for its protection''. By the mid-1950s, India had built Asia's first atomic research reactor, Apsara, and set in motion a broad- based nuclear programme. After the Cirus reactor started up in 1960, Nehru declared, ``We are approaching a stage when it is possible for us . . . to make atomic weapons.'' That stage was reached unquestionably in 1964, when India completed a facility at Trombay to reprocess the Cirus spent fuel, making it the fifth country to be able to produce plutonium. When the Chinese conducted their first nuclear test in 1964--four months after Nehru's death--Homi Bhabba declared that India, if it decided, could build a nuclear bomb within 18 months. China's first nuclear test, barely two years after its invading forces inflicted a crushing defeat on India, sharply heightened this country's insecurity. The following year, Pakistan, taking advantage of India's security travails, infiltrated its men into Jammu and Kashmir, triggering a full-scale war. It was Lal Bahadur Shastri who initiated the Indian nuclear explosives programme in 1965. But a series of events put a brake on that programme. These included the passing away of Shastri, Bhabba's own death in a mysterious plane crash in Europe, and the political instability triggered by an initially weak government under Indira Gandhi. When India eventually conducted a nuclear detonation in 1974, it astounded the world. U.S. intelligence was caught unawares, even though Indira Gandhi had told Parliament in 1972 that her Government was ``studying situations under which peaceful nuclear explosions carried out underground can be of economic benefit to India without causing environmental hazards''. Earlier in 1970, India had rejected a U.S. demarche against conducting any nuclear explosion. By conducting the 1974 test, Indira Gandhi gave India a tangible nuclear option. The country broke no legal commitment and had the sovereign right to continue the testing programme. As Henry Kissinger told U.S. Congress after the Pokhran test, ``We objected strongly, but since there was no violation of U.S. agreements involved, we had no specific leverage on which to bring our objections to bear''. The test shook the 1968-designed NPT regime to its very foundation. Had India continued to test, this regime probably would have disintegrated or been seriously damaged. Instead, the U.S.-led regime emerged stronger and with fangs because India, to the great surprise of the rest of the world and its own public, did not go beyond that one single test. It will remain a riddle of history why Indira Gandhi did not carry out another test. One key constraint on India going overtly nuclear was its lack of missile capability. Indira Gandhi sought to remedy this by formally instituting a programme in 1983 to develop ballistic missiles. The essence of deterrence is the ability to retaliate with devastating might after surviving a first strike by an aggressor. Any nuclear deterrent force thus is centered on missiles, not bomber-aircraft, which in India's case cannot reach even the heartland of its leading security concern, China. India's nuclear option really opened up in an operational sense only after the Agni was flight-tested in February 1994, completing its triumphant three-test developmental phase. The first Agni test in 1989 was carried out despite, in the words of Rajiv Gandhi, ``ambassadors of certain foreign powers'' threatening punitive sanctions. ``I told them clearly that India would carry out the launch and we would not change our decision under pressure'', the then Prime Minister said. All three generations of Nehrus who served as Prime Ministers played an important role in building a concrete nuclear option. India's security planning, however, entered its darkest phase under P.V. Narasimha Rao, whose government slashed defence spending, squeezed strategic programmes, deviated from the traditional disarmament policy and delayed the flight-tests of even the short-range Prithvi missile. Rao showed that India did not need any enemy--it could be its own worst enemy. Rao declined to take follow-up action on the Agni, putting the programme in deep hibernation. As Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam said in 1994, the Agni needs no further experimental flight- tests but only ``random batch tests'' once its production begins. With the advance of simulation technology, longer- range missiles are entering production after one to four flight-tests. The Agni comprises two stages, each tested many times; Its solid-fuelled first stage is the SLV-3 space launcher, while its liquid-fuelled second stage is the Prithvi. Agni-type missiles make strategic sense only if they carry a nuclear weapon. While India had demonstrated its delivery capability, it had not demonstrated its ability to build a nuclear warhead for the Agni. A reliable warhead could never have emerged without testing. In fact, without the testing option, India would have had no nuclear option worth the name. As the only nuclear-threshold state not to receive tested warhead designs from external sources, India had to forcefully oppose the CTBT and safeguard its testing right. Through its nuclear indecision, India had also been undermining its international role, severely cramping its diplomacy and literally inviting the imposition of additional technology controls on it. While the threat of sanctions was being cleverly employed to rein in India, the country had over the years fallen victim to increasing technology sanctions for merely retaining an open nuclear option. Every cost-benefit analysis was showing that India was bleeding its interests, incurring the liabilities of maintaining an open option but not making the security gains. India's turning point came when an openly pro-nuclear government took office in March 1998. The new coalition elected to power pledged, in the words of A.B. Vajpayee, to ``exercise all options, including the nuclear option''. No prime minister has assumed office with such a categorical commitment. The Vajpayee government was determined not to miss India's closing opportunity to break out of its self-created constraints. The Indian nuclear option had come under increasing siege in the 1990s with the five declared nuclear powers joining hands for the first time to enforce nonproliferation as a global norm. After legitimising their nuclear hegemony through the NPT's permanent extensions, these powers had begun targeting Indian through the CTBT and the proposed FMCT. It was this pressure that prompted two previous Indian governments to order a nuclear test, although they retreated from their plan at the eleventh hour. The first test decision was taken by Narasimha Rao in late 1995, but the pusillanimous Rao scrapped the plan after the US government began breathing down his neck. US officials also leaked the test plan to an American newspaper. The newspaper report cited satellite reconnaissance as showing the Indians preparing to test, but since there was no drilling or other activity at Pokhran that a satellite could pick up, the tipoff to Washington most likely came from a high-level source in the Rao government. The second test move was initiated by Vajpayee immediately after taking over as Prime Minister in May 1996. The plan, however, had to be aborted as his government ran out of time after the Lok Sabba secretariat advanced the vote of confidence by two days. The H.D. Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral governments also seriously considered nuclear testing, but did not order any detonation in the absence of support from their Leftist constituents. When Vajpayee became Prime Minister for the second time, he knew that continued inaction would bring India under stepped- up pressure from next year, with the 1999 CTBT entry-into- force conference to be followed by the NPT review conference in 2000. He also realised that any testing plan would get leaked to the Americans unless it was confined to a handful of decision-makers. That is the reason why even the Defence Minister George Fernandes was not in the loop from the beginning, but was brought into the picture later before the first series of three detonations. Had Fernandes known the plan from the outset, he would not have gone around saying that a nuclear decision would have to await a strategic posture review. So when Vajpayee announced that India had conducted three nuclear tests within minutes of each other, he stunned the world and exposed one of America's biggest intelligence failures. The intelligence bungle was compounded by the subsequent Indian tests of two highly sophisticated devices with yields less than one kiloton. Those two blasts showed India can do advanced hydronuclear tests, which are limited to subcritical or slightly supercritical neutron multiplication and release negligible amounts of fission energy. It was inevitable that India would come under tremendous pressure once it resumed nuclear testing after a gap of almost a quarter century. But the decisionmakers recognised that the costs of inaction outweighed the costs of action. India had been paying a heavy price for its 1974 test as that step was not linked to a nuclear-deterrent blueprint. The rising tide of technology sanctions since 1974 sought to damn India whether it restrained itself or exercised the nuclear option. The nation decided ultimately to adopt the latter course and get out of a self-injurious situation. Having taken the toughest and boldest step necessary to embark on a nuclear-weapons programme, India has to determinedly push ahead without resting on its oars. Any vacillation will bring it under greater external pressure. The more determination it shows, the greater its leverage and ability to beat back sanctions. It cannot panic in the face of the international furore but stay firm and continue to build up its nuclear-weapons capability. When the world sees a resolute India pushing ahead, the present reaction will begin to taper off.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, Lawrence Central High School of Indianapolis competed in the 1998 National Finals of ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' contest in Washington, DC after winning the Indiana competition. Lawrence Central students competed with more than 1250 students representing 49 states and was the Central States winner. Their teacher was Drew Horvath and the list of students is as follows: Kari Amos, Robert Baker, Kari Buis, Julie Burton, Sheila Cardinal, Haley Carney, Mark Davis, Justin Gray, Amber Gross, Shawn Haislip, Kristen Halligan, Seth Higgins, Megan Iott, Les Jahnke, Kelly Khoury, Ted Kieffer, Justin Lane, Jolene McClusky, Joyce McCoy, Courtney Mills, Aaron Moberly, Galan Moore, Jon Owens, Chris Recktenwall, Eric Reissner, Kelly Richardson, Lisa Schubert, Tara Sheets, Jennifer Staresnick, and Shane White. Congratulations to Mr. Horvath, who has sent previous Indiana winners to this competition, and to all of these outstanding students.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Lori Parcel of Greenwood, Indiana in my District is the winner of the 1998 Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest for Indiana. I am pleased to present her winning script for the Record. Who hasn't solved a jigsaw puzzle? We all have been faced with the task of one time or another. I remember the last time I tried to solve one. After hours of work, the puzzle was nearly complete . . . and then I realized that some of the pieces were missing. I scoured the area in search of the missing pieces, but I was unable to find them. The puzzle remained incomplete. In many ways, our democracy is a puzzle that consists of over 250 million pieces. Over 250 million voices which are inextricably bound. And interlocked within this tapestry, the tapestry of democracy, is my voice. I realize that all of the pieces of the puzzle must be present for our government to be fully effective. However, looking around, I can't help but notice gaps in democracy's tapestry. Gaps which surely weaken the entire structure. I raise my voice to cry out to the missing pieces, to tell them to join the majority of Americans, to exchange ideas and strengthen our government, but my cry does not reach some. They do not understand that by discounting their own voices, and by ignoring my plea, they are hurting both themselves and our government. They do not realize that a democracy such as ours cannot effectively operate without their input. I use my voice to tell them about the time I was paging in the state legislature. I tell of a man who came into the statehouse and observed me tallying opinion surveys. The man, presumably a stray piece, was surprised that the surveys were tallied. He expressed his astonishment by saying, ``That's where those surveys go. You actually read these. I did not think anyone listened, or that it was worth spending money for a stamp.'' The man did not understand that the absence a single voice, a solitary note in the symphony of our government, can throw harmony into discord. I plea to the stray pieces once again. I tell them that, during my experience paging, I learned that legislators are people. They have pictures of their families on their desks, and they even drink coffee. They are no different from the rest of us except they have decided to make a career out of using their voices to build our democracy, to add more pieces to the puzzle in hope of solving our nation's problems. But certainly one does not have to hold public office to have a voice in our government. Rosa Parks provided the impetus for the Civil Rights movement by simply refusing to give up her seat on the bus. She did not even have to open her mouth to have her voice heard throughout the nation. My voice will not be the missing piece of the puzzle or the chord absent in the symphony. I may speak loudly and run for public office. Or I may speak softly by writing to my representative to tell him my opinions on an issue. But regardless of how I speak, my voice will always be audible. It must be, in order for me to be a fully participating member of our democracy. It is my duty to those who have sacrificed and those who continue to work for freedom throughout the world to exercise my right to participate in our government. I realize that using my voice is critical to the continuation of democracy. Our government consists of millions of voices. Those of politicians and those of voters, but all of which are American voices. Exercising our voices through voting is our privilege, right, and duty as American citizens. In order to truly have a government of, by, and for the people, we must all work to build it. We must all contribute our piece of the puzzle, our voice, to our democracy. When I cast my vote a year from now, I will be doing far more than choosing one candidate from the ballot. I will be contributing my voice to the extensive puzzle which depicts the tapestry of our government. And I will be raising my voice, in harmony, to contribute to that symphony we call democracy.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago I was riding on an airplane, and I sat down next to a fellow who was a little reluctant to start talking to me initially. But we had about a 3-hour flight, and, as the flight progressed, I got a chance to get to know this fellow. His name was Eddie Rabbitt, and he was a country and western singer who over the last 20 years had 26 number one country hits. And Eddie and I became very good friends, and we talked on the phone quite frequently. We did not get together very much, but we talked on the phone on a regular basis. And about a year ago I found out that Eddie was suffering from lung cancer. He was 55 years old at the time, and he had part of his lung removed, and he went through chemotherapy and all the other things that people go through when they suffer from cancer of almost any type anymore. And Eddie was a very courageous fellow. He fought very, very hard to whip cancer, and they thought that they did have it whipped but, unfortunately, a couple of weeks ago Eddie Rabbitt passed away. He was one of the finest men I had the opportunity to know. He was a good family man. He feared God. He cared about his country, and he believed that entertainment, country and western entertainment, should be very clean and free from obscenities. And he talked about that quite frequently. He was one of the nicest guys that I had the opportunity to know over the past several years, and he will be missed by me and by a lot of other people across the country who really loved and admired his work. At the height of his career, he decided to cut back on his performances because he had a son Timothy who had liver disease, and his son died in 1985, 1 month shy of his second birthday. It was very difficult for him, and he decided to cut back on his work so he could spend more time with his family. Rabbitt and his wife Janine had two other children, daughter Demelza, 16, and son Tommy, 11. They lived in the Nashville suburb of Franklin, Tennessee. He was a wonderful man. He was a man who was loved by people all across this country. He was a great entertainer, a great artist, and he will be missed by people all over this country and all over the world.

Mr. BURTON

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I have heard some of my colleagues say that we have to make it clear to China that if they are to join the people of nations, that they are going to have to change their policies. I have heard some of my colleagues say that we have to be respectful, but firm. I have been in Congress now for 16 years, and every single year I have heard that same kind of statement. Every single year, the situation either remains the same or worse. Recently, a Clinton administration official said frankly on the human rights front, the situation has deteriorated. They are rounding up dissidents and harassing them more. There were 7,300 young men and women who wanted nothing more than liberty and freedom 9 years ago and were brutally massacred or hurt in Tiananmen Square. Many of them are still in communist Chinese gulags today. What are we going to do about it? We have got to continue to be engaged with them. We have a $60 billion trade deficit that is really putting pressure on communist China. They are using 10 million men, women, and children in slave labor camps, gulags, to make tennis shoes and things that we buy in this country every day. Yet, when they commit human rights atrocities like Tiananmen Square, we say we have to keep engaged. We have to be respectful, but firm. We have to make it clear to them they have got to change, but they do not change. It goes on year after year after year. Today, we had a hearing before our committee. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and I cochaired that meeting. We had Harry Wu testify before our committee, and Wei Jingsheng before the committee. Both of them told us very clearly that in the prisons over there they are killing prisoners for body parts. They come to foreign countries, and they say to foreign countries, if you want a kidney, we will get it for you for $30,000. Then they go back for tissue samples and blood samples, and they find a prisoner or group of prisoners. They say, okay, come over here on a certain date, and I will kill them and give you their kidneys, and they do it. They are making an estimated minimum of $60 million a year by harvesting body parts off of prisoners, many of them possibly political dissidents, and selling them to people around the world. I cannot hardly believe that. It is ghoulish. Yet, we turn our backs on that. It is going on today. They are doing it in Taiwan. They are doing it in Macao. They are doing it all over Southeast Asia. They are doing it even here in the United States, where people have already been arrested trying to sell these body parts. But we have to stay engaged with them. We have to look the other way while these human rights atrocities continue to take place. I say, why? Are we our brother's keeper or not? Are we supposed to turn our head and look the other way just for the almighty dollar? Is American business so callous that they do not care about people in other parts of the world? Obviously we want to make money. Money is very important. But, for God's sake, what about human beings who are suffering? We look the other way. What kind of penalties do we impose on the Chinese Government for these atrocities? Nothing. Nothing. We talk about it year after year after year. Many of my colleagues have been here as long as I have, and nothing changes. There are still 10 million people in those gulags making tennis shoes for us, slave labor camps, being paid nothing, but we look the other way. We have got to stay constructively engaged with no penalties. I submit to my colleagues, we have got to put some pressure on them. We have done it before, I think, when we had some property rights. A couple years ago I think we put some pressure on China and they relented, but it was only because we put pressure on them. But we do not do that anymore. Very rare cases. So I would just like to say to my colleagues we need to put pressure on communist China. We now believe that we have had technology transferred that has endangered the very security of every man, woman, and child in this country, or possibly may have. We know that the Chinese Communist government has given political contributions in this country, and they do not do it for their health. They must have been doing it, trying to influence our policies in some way. These things need to be investigated thoroughly before the President of the United States goes over there in Tiananmen Square where this massacre took place and starts shaking hands with the President of China, who lied to the American people when he said there were no political contributions coming from them into this country, and he knew it. I would just like to end up by saying this to my colleagues: For God's sweet sake, think about those people over there who are dying today while we are so callously looking the other way.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, due to circumstances beyond my control, I am unable to cast my vote for the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act (H.R. 2400) Conference Report. If I were able to vote on the conference report, I would vote in the affirmative. This legislation is vital to restoring integrity to the Highway Trust Fund, and funding equity to the several States. While the issue of transportation infrastructure may not seem glamorous, it takes on a compelling National interest when economic growth is restricted, and our valuable time is wasted by crushing traffic jams, potholed and dangerous roads, and a crumbling National transportation infrastructure. The Conference Report on H.R. 2400 is landmark legislation that affirms the Federal government's commitment to a strong, modern, and safe transportation infrastructure. This legislation restores the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund; it has the support of business and labor, contractors and environmentalists, safety groups, and State and local governments alike; it addresses many of the concerns of Hoosiers by returning a greater portion of the money collected by motor vehicle excise taxes to Indiana for much-needed infrastructure investment. Equally as important, BESTEA gives States and localities the ability to decide how and where transportation dollars should be spent. Again, Mr. Speaker, if I were able to vote on the conference report, I would vote in the affirmative. It is crucial that the Congress restore integrity to the Highway Trust Fund and ensure funding equity to the several States.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, Lawrence Central High School of Indianapolis competed in the 1998 National Finals of ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' contest in Washington, DC after winning the Indiana competition. Lawrence Central students competed with more than 1,250 students representing 49 states and was the Central States winner. Their teacher was Drew Horvath and the list of students is as follows: Kari Amos, Robert Baker, Kari Buis, Julie Burton, Sheila Cardinal, Haley Carney, Mark Davis, Justin Gray, Amber Gross, Shawn Haislip, Kristen Halligan, Seth Higgins, Megan Iott, Les Jahnke, Kelly Khoury, Ted Kieffer, Justin Lane, Jolene McClusky, Joyce McCoy, Courtney Mills, Aaron Moberly, Galan Moore, Jon Owens, Chris Recktenwall, Eric Reissner, Kelly Richardson, Lisa Schubert, Tara Sheets, Jennifer Staresnick, and Shane White. Congratulations to Mr. Horvath, who has sent previous Indiana winners to this competition, and to all of these outstanding students.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the point of all this is, was our national security jeopardized because of campaign contributions coming from Communist China? Was a technology transfer made that endangered the security of the people of this country by giving MIRVing technology, so they can hit several cities with one rocket, for campaign contributions? Let us look at the facts. Johnny Chung has told investigators that he received $300,000 from Liu Chaoying. Who is Liu Chaoying? Liu Chaoying is a lieutenant colonel who is also an executive, an executive of China Aerospace. She is a lieutenant colonel in the Red Chinese army. Her father was the top military commander of the entire Red Chinese army. He is a senior member of the Communist party in China. She gave $300,000 to Johnny Chung to give to the Democrat National Committee. They do not do that for their health. You do not give money to a foreign government or a foreign campaign for your health. There was a reason behind it. We believe there were other contributions of this type that came into the Democrat National Committee, and other campaigns in the United States of America. In fact, I am sure of it. I am sure of it. What were these monies for? We know that this technology transfer took place. We know that the Justice Department was investigating it. We know that the President of the United States gave a waiver so this technology could go forth. Was there a connection? Was our national security jeopardized because of these campaign contributions and because of this technology transfer? These are things the American people have a right to know, because every man, every woman, and every child in the future may be jeopardized because of these decisions. Was it treason? I do not know. I hope not. I do not believe it was. I hope not. Was it incompetence? Maybe. Was it because of greed for campaign contributions? Possibly, and maybe likely. But we need to have the answers. That is why a full-scale investigation needs to take place. That is why witnesses who want to talk need to be immunized. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to be patriots first and politicians second, patriots first and politicians second, because the security of the United States is at risk and at stake. I urge them to vote with me for immunity, for the sake of this country.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit the following for the Congressional Record: ``My Voice in our Democracy'' (By Lori Parcel, Indiana Winner) Who hasn't solved a jigsaw puzzle? We all have been faced with the task at one time or another. I remember the last time I tried to solve one. After hours of work, the puzzle was nearly complete . . . and then I realized that some of the pieces were missing. I scoured the area in search of the missing pieces, but I was unable to find them. The puzzle remained incomplete. In many ways, our democracy is a puzzle that consists of over 250 million pieces. Over 250 million voices which are inextricably bound. And interlocked within this tapestry, the tapestry of democracy, is my voice. I realize that all of the pieces of the puzzle must be present for our government to be fully effective. However, looking around, I can't help but notice gaps in democracy's tapestry. Gaps which surely weaken the entire structure. I raise my voice to cry out to the missing pieces, to tell them to join the majority of Americans, to exchange ideas and strengthen our government, but my cry does not reach some. They do not understand that by discounting their own voices, and by ignoring my plea, they are hurting both themselves and our government. They do not realize that a democracy such as ours cannot effectively operate without their input. I use my voice to tell them about the time I was paging in the state legislature. I tell of a man who came into the statehouse and observed me tallying opinion surveys. The man, presumably a stray piece, was surprised that the surveys were tallied. He expressed his astonishment by saying, ``That's where those surveys go. You actually read these. I did not think anyone listened, or that it was worth spending money for a stamp.'' The man did not understand that the absence a single voice, a solitary note in the symphony of our government, can throw harmony into discord. I plea to the stray pieces once again. I tell them that, during my experience paging, I learned that legislators are people. They have pictures of their families on their desks, and they even drink coffee. They are no different from the rest of us except they have decided to make a career out of using their voices to build our democracy, to add more pieces to the puzzle in hope of solving our nation's problems. But certainly one does not have to hold public office to have a voice in our government. Rosa Parks provided the impetus for the Civil Rights movement by simply refusing to give up her seat on the bus. She did not even have to open her mouth to have her voice heard throughout the nation. My voice will not be the missing piece of the puzzle or the chord absent in the symphony. I may speak loudly and run for public office. Or I may speak softly by writing to my representative to tell him my opinions on an issue. But regardless of how I speak, my voice will always be audible. It must be, in order for me to be a fully participating member of our democracy. It is my duty to those who have sacrificed and those who continue to work for freedom throughout the world to exercise my right to participate in our government. I realize that using my voice is critical to the continuation of democracy. Our government consists of millions of voices. Those of politicians and those of voters, but all of which are American voices. Exercising our voices through voting is our privilege, right, and duty as American citizens. In order to truly have a government of, by, and for the people, we must all work to build it. We must all contribute our piece of the puzzle, our voice, to our democracy. When I cast my vote a year from now, I will be doing far more than choosing one candidate from the ballot. I will be contributing my voice to the extensive puzzle which depicts the tapestry of our government. And I will be raising my voice, in harmony, to contribute to that symphony we call democracy.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege deals with statements made in three editorials published in newspapers within the last week. The editorials contain statements which reflect directly on my reputation and integrity and specifically allege deceptive actions on my part and impugn my character and motive.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleagues that I regret having to take this time out of our very busy schedule. I will not take the whole hour, but I think it is extremely important that the issues I am going to talk about be made available to my colleagues and to anyone else who is interested. I rise today to take a point of personal privilege and to discuss the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's investigation into illegal campaign contributions and other crimes. My conduct as chairman has been criticized by many of my Democratic colleagues. Those criticisms have been echoed in the press so I am taking this point of personal privilege to lay out for the American people the facts about this investigation. The fact is that this committee has been subjected to a level of stonewalling and obstruction that has never been seen by a congressional investigation in the history of this country. This investigation has been stonewalled by the White House. This investigation has been stonewalled by the Democratic National Committee. This committee has seen over 90 witnesses, 90, either take the fifth amendment or flee the country to avoid testifying, more than 90. The fact that all of these people have invoked their fifth amendment right to avoid self-incrimination is a pretty strong indication that a lot of crimes have been committed. Tomorrow the committee will vote on immunity for four witnesses, all of whom have previously invoked their right against self-incrimination. The Democrats on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight have voted once to block immunity and keep these witnesses from testifying. I hope that tomorrow they will reconsider and vote to allow this investigation to move forward as it should. This investigation has seen enough obstruction and enough stonewalling for a lifetime. Before tomorrow's vote, I want to lay out for the American people and my colleagues what has happened in this investigation over the last year, the stalling and the delaying tactics that have been used against us and what has brought us to this point. I want to give a comprehensive summary of events so I am not going to yield to my colleagues during this speech. I became chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in January of 1997. The President said he would give his full cooperation to all congressional investigations of illegal foreign fund-raising, including ours. So why are we conducting this investigation? Because there is very strong evidence that crimes were committed. Let us take a look at some of the allegations that compelled us to begin this investigation: that the DNC had accepted millions of dollars in illegal foreign campaign contributions; that $3 million of the $4.5 million in contributions attributed to John Huang had to be returned because of suspicions about their origins; that the Chinese Government had developed and implemented a plan to influence the elections in the United States of America; that Charlie Trie, a friend of the President's from Arkansas, had funneled close to $700,000 in contributions associated with a Taiwanese cult to the President's legal defense fund; that Charlie Trie's Macao-based benefactor had wired him in excess of $1 million from overseas banks; that Charlie Trie was behind roughly $600,000 in suspicious contributions to the Democratic National Committee; that Pauline Kanchanalak and her family funneled a half a million dollars to the Democratic National Party from Thailand; that Chinese gun merchants, Cuban drug smugglers and Russian mob figures were being invited to intimate White House events with the President in exchange for campaign contributions; that the former associate Attorney General received $700,000 from friends and associates of the President, including $100,000 from the Riady family at a time when he was supposed to be cooperating with a criminal investigation. These are serious allegations about serious crimes. The Justice Department recently brought indictments against three of these individuals and a fourth, Johnny Chung has pled guilty. In January 1997, I sent letters to the White House requesting copies of all documents relating to this investigation. I asked for documents regarding John Huang, Charlie Trie, White House fund-raisers, et cetera. I gave the White House a chance to cooperate. Chairman Clinger, who preceded me, had written to the White House in October of 1996, and requested all documents regarding John Huang. Press reports had indicated that the White House had already assembled these documents and had them in boxes at the White House before the end of 1996. The entire month of February passed and we received only a trickle of documents from the White House. In March it was clear that the White House was not going to comply voluntarily. The President had offered his cooperation at the beginning of the year, but the White House refused to turn over documents to the committee. The White House campaign of stalling had begun. So I issued a subpoena for the documents. I held a meeting with the President's new White House counsel, Mr. Charles Ruff. Mr. Ruff assured me that the President would not assert executive privilege over any of the documents. The White House continued to resist turning over documents despite the lawful subpoena that we sent to them. Despite the earlier assurances, they told us they intended to claim executive privilege, even though they had said previously the President would not on over 60 documents that were relevant to the fund-raising scandal. It had always been White House policy not to claim executive privilege whenever personal wrongdoing or potential criminal conduct was being investigated. President Clinton's own counsel, Lloyd Cutler, had reiterated this policy early in the Clinton administration. But now President Clinton was using executive privilege to block our investigation. The month of April passed and little or no progress had been made in getting the documents we called for in our subpoena. This was more than four months after my first document request had been sent to the White House. In May, I was compelled to schedule a committee meeting to hold White House counsel Charles Ruff in contempt of Congress. More than four months had passed since I asked for the President's cooperation in producing documents and there had been nothing but stalling and more stalling. It was only with this sword hanging over their heads that the White House finally began to make efforts to comply with our subpoena. Mr. Ruff agreed to turn over all documents required by the subpoena within 6 weeks. He also agreed to allow committee attorneys to review documents on their privilege log to determine if the committee needed to have them. We reviewed those documents. We did need many of them. After months of stalling, we finally got some of them. By June, Mr. Ruff provided me with a letter stating that the White House had and I quote, to the best of his knowledge, end of quote, turned over every document in their possession required by the subpoena. We would find out later that that was not true. All the while we were struggling to get documents from the White House, I was subjected to a steady stream of mudslinging and vicious personal attacks from Democratic operatives and others close to the President. The DNC, which at the time was resisting complying with our subpoena, was spending thousands of dollars conducting opposition research on my background to try to intimidate me. They produced a scurrilous 20-page report detailing every trip I had ever taken, the contributions I had received over the years, my financial disclosure statements and anything else they could find. This document, which made outrageous and untrue accusations against me, was faxed around to reporters in an effort to drum up negative publicity about me and intimidate me. So much for cooperation with a legitimate congressional campaign investigation. In March, the week my committee's budget was to be voted on by the House, a former executive director of the Democratic National Committee made a slanderous accusation that I shook him down for campaign contributions. His accusation was printed on the front page of the Washington Post. His actions, which are completely untrue and absurd on their face, became the subject of a Justice Department investigation. As it turns out, this individual, Mark Siegel, was a former Carter White House aide, a former DNC executive director, a Democratic fund- raiser and a Democratic lobbyist. More importantly, it became known later that he is a close friend and business associate of then-White House attorney Lanny Davis. His accusations were clearly politically motivated and timed to hurt the chances for approval of our budget for the investigation. So much for cooperation from the Democrats. Other sleazy accusations were being dished out to the press by anonymous Democratic agents. One reporter from my home State received derogatory information about me in an unmarked manila envelope without any return address. One Washington reporter got an anonymous phone call and was told to go to a phone booth, a phone booth in the Rayburn Building, and look in the back of the phone book. He went to that phone booth and found an envelope of defamatory information about me glued to the inside of the back of the phone book. Talk about cloak and dagger. This is the type of smear campaign that every committee chairman who has attempted to conduct oversight of the White House has been subjected to. They attempted to smear the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), they attempted to smear Chairman, former Congressman Bill Clinger, they attempted to smear Senator D'Amato, they attempted to smear Senator Fred Thompson, they even attempted to smear FBI Director Louis Freeh when he sought to convince the Attorney General to appoint an independent counsel. And, of course, Mr. Starr has been smeared, and everybody else that has investigated any aspect of the White House. What does this kind of behavior by the Democratic Party say to the American people? Is this cooperation? Were these smear campaigns orchestrated by the White House? That is something the American people have a right to know. In February of 1997, my staff learned, by reading The Washington Post, that the White House had sought a briefing from the FBI about the evidence it had gathered about Chinese efforts to infiltrate our political system and to affect the outcomes of elections. For obvious reasons, the FBI resisted giving such a briefing. The criminal investigation potentially implicated members of the White House staff. I learned from discussions with FBI Director Louis Freeh that at a time he was traveling in the Middle East, senior officials at the Justice Department attempted to provide this information about the ongoing criminal investigation to the White House, that was part of the investigation, a move that the FBI adamantly opposed. According to Director Freeh, when his staff learned that the Justice Department lawyers were planning on giving this information to the White House, Director Freeh's chief of staff called him on his airplane halfway around the world in a last-ditch effort to stop the transfer of this information to the White House, which could have potentially jeopardized the investigation. Director Freeh was forced to make an emergency phone call to the Attorney General from his plane in the Middle East to intervene and stop that process. When the Attorney General testified before our committee in December, she told a different version of events. She testified that she initiated the call to Director Freeh on his airplane to consult with him about providing the information to the White House. However, when Director Freeh testified the next day, he confirmed that it was he who initiated the call, after his staff warned him that the FBI was being circumvented so that sensitive information could be provided to the White House against the FBI's wishes. Now, let us go back to the White House. The stonewalling and the obstruction from the White House did not stop following our agreement with Mr. Ruff, the President's chief counsel. The letter I received in June of 1997 from Mr. Ruff assured me that, quote, to the best of his knowledge, all documents relevant to our investigation had been provided to the committee. Unfortunately, these assurances were hollow. They were false. Throughout the summer, boxes of newly discovered documents dribbled into the committee offices. Often, when the documents contained damaging revelations, they were leaked to the press before being provided to the committee. On one occasion, on a Friday night, we got about 12 boxes of documents. We did not even open them until the next Monday. But in the Saturday morning papers there was information that was in those boxes in the papers, and the White House was accusing us of leaking the information when we had not even opened the boxes. When this happened, the documents were normally given to reporters late on a Friday or over a busy weekend to try to deaden their impact on the American people. It was not unusual to receive documents pertaining to a White House or a DNC employee shortly after that employee was deposed. This forced us, on a continuing basis, to consider redeposing witnesses, costing additional time and money. In the Senate, Senator Thompson faced the same obstacles. Last July, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs heard 2 days of testimony from DNC Finance Director Richard Sullivan. The evening following Sullivan's testimony, after he testified, the White House delivered several boxes of documents shedding new light on Sullivan's activities. The chairman of the committee in the other body was so infuriated that he canceled his agreement allowing the White House to provide documents voluntarily and he issued his first subpoena to the White House. On August 1, more Richard Sullivan documents turned up at the Democratic National Committee. The DNC turned over several boxes of memos and handwritten notes from the filing cabinet in Sullivan's office. The idea that the DNC could have overlooked drawers and drawers of relevant documents right in Richard Sullivan's office strains credibility. The Senate was forced to redepose Mr. Sullivan. The final straw came in October when the White House videotapes were discovered. The White House had in its possession close to 100 videotapes of the President speaking and mingling with subjects of our investigation at DNC fund-raisers and White House coffees. The President could be seen at the White House fund-raisers with John Huang, James Riady, Pauline Kanchanalak, Charlie Trie, and many others. In one tape the President could be seen introduced at a fund-raiser to Charlie Trie and several foreign businessmen as ``The Trie Team.'' This was serious evidence that the White House had withheld from Congress and the Justice Department investigation for over 6 months. Despite the fact our subpoena clearly ordered the production of any relevant videotapes, the White House had, for 6 months, failed to reveal their existence. It was only under pressure from a Senate investigator, who had received a tip from a source, that the White House admitted to the existence of the tapes. In other words, they did not turn over the fund-raising tapes until their hand was caught in the cookie jar. Charles Ruff has said publicly that he was informed of the existence of the tapes on Wednesday, October 1. Now, remember this. The President's counsel said he was informed of the existence of the tapes on Wednesday, October 1. He met with Attorney General Janet Reno on Thursday, October 2, the day after he found out about the tapes. He did not inform the Attorney General at that meeting that the tapes existed and that they had not been turned over to the Justice Department. I believe he had an obligation to do so. Now, this was a critical week, because the Attorney General was in the process of deciding whether to seek the appointment of an independent counsel and she had to make her decision on Friday, October 3. So the President's counsel knew about the tapes on the 1st, he talked to the Attorney General on the 2nd, she had to make her decision on the 3rd, but he did not tell her about it. And so she made the decision not to appoint an independent counsel. Had she known about those tapes, her decision might have been otherwise. On Friday, the Attorney General released a letter declining to appoint an independent counsel. The tapes were not released until the Justice Department--until the weekend. Another stonewalling. In other words, Mr. Ruff had a face-to-face meeting with the Attorney General. He failed to disclose to her that the fund-raising videotapes existed and allowed her to make a very important decision on an independent counsel without having any knowledge of them. That is just wrong. It is obstruction of our investigation and all these investigations. I called Charles Ruff and the other attorneys from the White House counsel's office to testify before our committee in November, to answer for their failure to produce these tapes. Under questioning from a committee attorney, White House Deputy Counsel Cheryl Mills admitted that she and White House Counsel Jack Quinn had withheld from the committee for 1 year an important document related to the investigation of political uses of the White House database. The document in question was a page of notes taken by a White House staffer that indicated the President's desire to integrate the White House database with the DNC's database, which is not legal. This document had a direct bearing on the subcommittee's investigation. Cheryl Mills admitted that she had kept the document in a file in her office for over a year, based on a legal sleight of hand. Her behavior in this instance was another in a long string of incidents that reflected the White House's desire to stall and delay congressional investigations of its alleged misconduct. This kind of behavior is inexcusable for a White House attorney and a public servant. It was not the only time the subcommittee has faced obstructionism. The White House official most directly responsible for developing the controversial database was Marsha Scott. Committee attorneys had to attempt to depose Ms. Scott on three separate occasions to overcome her refusal to answer questions. This April, Ms. Scott was subpoenaed to attend a deposition. She arrived for the deposition, began to answer questions, and then abruptly got up and walked out of the deposition. This committee has never seen a witness who was under subpoena walk out in the middle of a deposition. The subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), was forced to call an emergency meeting of the subcommittee at 8 o'clock that night to force Ms. Scott to return and answer the questions. This is typical of the kinds of obstruction this committee has encountered while dealing with this White House. The White House strategy was accurately described in a recent New York Post editorial as ``The Four Ds: Deny, Delay, Denigrate and Distract.'' It appears that the White House's game plan has been to stall and obstruct legitimate investigations for as long as possible and then criticize the length of the investigations, all the while attacking the investigators. It has been fairly noted by a number of leading editorial pages that if the President and his subordinates would simply cooperate and tell the truth, these investigations could be wrapped up quickly. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight continued to have White House documents dribble in as late as last December, 6 months after Charles Ruff had certified they had given us everything. Since January of last year, I have been seeking information from the Justice Department about its investigations into allegations that the Government of Vietnam may have attempted to bribe Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to influence policy on the normalization of relations with Vietnam, even though we had not had complete reporting on the 2,300 or 2,400 POWs and MIAs left behind. The New York Times reported that the Justice Department had received evidence of international wire transfers related to the case, that there was money transferred from Hanoi to another bank. There was information in the papers about that. Despite the fact that the Justice Department had closed the case, they were resisting providing any information to my committee. On Tuesday, July 8, because the Justice Department would not give me the information, I sent a subpoena to the Attorney General and the Justice Department demanding this information. Now, get this: 3 days later, after I sent a subpoena to the Attorney General, on Friday, July 11, my campaign had an FBI agent walk in and give us a subpoena for 5 years of my campaign records. Although Mr. Siegel had made his allegations against me in March, there had been no signs of any investigative activity within the Justice Department until I sent a subpoena to the Attorney General about Mr. Brown and that FBI report. Was this a case of retaliation? That is a question the American people have a right to have answered, and I think I do, too. This committee has faced obstructions from the White House. That is obvious. It is also true that this committee has faced serious obstructions from other governments in this world. We tried to send a team of investigators to China and Hong Kong earlier this year. There are important witnesses that need to be interviewed to find out who is behind major wire transfers of money that wound up being funneled into campaigns in this country. The Chinese Government turned us down flat. They would not give visas to our investigators. We attempted to get information from the Bank of China about who originated the wire transfers of hundreds of thousands of dollars to Charlie Trie, Ng Lap Seng and others. The Bank of China told us they are an arm of the Chinese Government and they would not comply with our subpoena. I wrote to the President and asked for his assistance to break through this logjam with the Chinese Government. We have received no answer and no assistance whatsoever from the White House. My friends on the Democratic side of the aisle are fond of complaining about the number of subpoenas I have issued. For the record, I have issued just over 600 since the investigation began a year-and-a-half ago. There is a very simple reason that I have been compelled to issue that many subpoenas. This committee has received absolutely no cooperation from more than 90 key witnesses and participants in efforts to funnel foreign money into U.S. campaigns. And many of these people are personal friends of the President, many of these people worked in the White House, and they have taken the Fifth or fled the country. More than 90 witnesses have either taken the Fifth to avoid incriminating themselves or fled the country to avoid testifying because they possibly are involved in criminal activity. The Justice Department did not receive much cooperation either. Director Freeh, when he testified before the committee last December, told us that they had issued over 1,000 subpoenas from the FBI. Fifty-three people have taken the fifth. These include Webb Hubbell, the President's hand-picked Associate Attorney General; John Huang, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce, who was in the White House over 100 times during the President's first term; and Mark Middleton, a high-level aide in the office of the White House Chief of Staff. I want to be clear about what this means. High-level appointees of the President have exercised their fifth amendment rights against self- incrimination in criminal investigations, in crimes. These people do not want to testify because they do not want to admit to the commission of any crime that they may have been involved in. And these are people that have worked in the White House close to the President, his friends. Thirty-eight witnesses have either fled the country or refused to make themselves available to be interviewed in their countries or their residence. There has never before in the history of this country been a congressional investigation that has had to investigate a scandal that is so broad and so international in scope. There has never before been a congressional investigation that has seen and had over 90 witnesses refuse to cooperate or flee the country. The fact that we have had so many non-cooperating witnesses is the reason that we have had to issue so many subpoenas. For instance, Charlie Trie, even though he has returned to the United States, has refused to cooperate with the committee. To overcome this problem, we had to issue 117 subpoenas to banks, phone companies, businesses, and other individuals to get information that Mr. Trie could have provided himself to us and to the committee. We have had to issue 60 subpoenas to attempt to get information about Ted Sioeng. Ted Sioeng and his family have given $400,000 to the Democrat National Committee. They have also given $150,000 to Republican causes. Not only has Ted Sioeng fled the country, but more than a dozen people associated with them have left as well. I mean, they are all heading for the hills. If Ted Sioeng would come back to the United States and cooperate with this investigation, we would not have to issue all of these subpoenas. Eighty percent of the subpoenas I have issued have been targeted to get information about half a dozen individuals who have been implicated in this scandal and who have taken the fifth amendment to avoid testifying. Just to be clear, more than 90 people have taken the fifth amendment or fled the country. That is scandalous. It has never happened before in the history of this country. Friends of the President, friends of the administration, contributors, leaders from other countries, have all headed for the hills. This is unprecedented. This should be a clear indication to people of the extent of the lawbreaking that occurred during the last campaign. At this point, I would like to say a few things about the release of the Webster Hubbell tapes, which we read about in the papers last week. First, Webster Hubbell was the Associate Attorney General of the United States. He was hand-picked by President Clinton to serve as one of the highest law enforcement officers in our land. Within a year, he was forced to resign in disgrace because of a criminal investigation into fraud at his law firm. He was eventually convicted and served 18 months in prison. Between the time he resigned, between the time he left the Justice Department and he was convicted, about 6 or 7 months later, he received $700,000 in payments from friends and associates of the President's for doing little or no work; and many people believe that was hush money. One hundred thousand dollars came from the Riady family in Indonesia, owners of the Lippo Group. This payment came within a few days of 10 meetings at the White House, some including the President himself, involving the President, John Huang, James Riady, and Webster Hubbell. Serious allegations have been made that this $700,000 was hush money meant to keep Mr. Hubbell silent. A criminal investigation is underway. And Mr. Hubbell was just indicted for failure to pay almost $900,000 in taxes. The American people have a right to know what happened. They have a right to know why Mr. Hubbell received this money and what he did for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and people do not shell out $700,000 for nothing. We would expect the President's hand-picked appointee to a powerful Justice Department position would be the first to volunteer to cooperate with the congressional investigation. Instead, Mr. Hubbell, a close friend of the President, former leader at the Justice Department, has taken the fifth amendment and remains silent. This has forced us to seek other sources of information. And that is why I subpoenaed the prison tapes of Mr. Hubbell's phone conversations. Out of 150 hours of conversations, my staff prepared just over 1 hour for release to the public, private conversations that had nothing to do with our investigation, and we screened those out. What was contained in that hour of conversations raises troubling questions. Given the seriousness of the allegations, this material deserves to be on the public record. On these tapes, we hear Mrs. Hubbell say that she fears that she will lose her job at the Interior Department if Mr. Hubbell takes actions that will hurt the Clintons. We heard Mrs. Hubbell say that she feels she is being squeezed by the White House. Webster Hubbell states, after she says that, that ``I guess I must roll over just one more time.'' ``Roll over one more time.'' These statements raise very disturbing questions about the conduct of the White House and the conduct of the Hubbells. The American people have a right to know the answers. Let me say a couple things about the charges of selective editing. Mistakes were made in the editing process. As chairman, I take responsibility for those mistakes. But they were just that, innocent mistakes. In the process of editing 149 hours of personal conversations, the staff cut out a couple of paragraphs that should have been left in. Here are a few points to be kept in mind. We are not talking about transcripts. What were prepared were logs of the conversations, logs, summaries of information on the tapes. They were not verbatim transcripts and they were never identified as such. They were logs of where these conversations came from out of the 150 hours of tapes that was condensed on to one. Exculpatory statements about both Mrs. Clinton and other Clinton administration officials were left in the logs. In one case, an exculpatory statement by Mr. Hubbell about Mrs. Clinton was underlined to highlight it. The tapes were never altered. This charge has been repeated time and time again by the Democrats and it is false. The tapes were not altered. Once the tapes were made public, reporters were allowed to listen to and record the appropriate sections of the tapes in their entirety. These sections included the statements about Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Hubbell that have been complained about. How can anyone argue that there was an intent to deceive when reporters were allowed to listen to the comments I have been accused of deleting? Finally, in an effort to end once and for all these charges of selective editing, I have released the tapes of these 50 conversations in their entirety, even though I did not want to because there is personal stuff in there that I did not think should be in the public domain, but the integrity of the investigation had to be maintained. What I find most unfortunate is that this incident has detracted from the important facts about the Hubbell tapes that it appears that Mr. Hubbell and his wife were under a great deal of pressure to keep their mouths shut. This is something that absolutely must be investigated. It is something that the American people absolutely have a right to know. She felt she was being squeezed by the White House, and he felt he had to roll over one more time. He had to roll over one more time. And when we have over 90 people fleeing the country or taking the fifth amendment, we have to wonder if Mr. Hubbell is only one of a number that are scared to talk, that are afraid to say anything because of pressure from the White House. This brings us to tomorrow's committee meeting. Tomorrow we will try to break through this stone wall one more time by granting immunity to four witnesses. The Justice Department has agreed to immunity. The Justice Department has agreed to immunity. They have been thoroughly consulted. The Justice Department has already immunized two of these witnesses themselves. There is no reason to oppose immunity. Yet 19 Democrats on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight voted in lock step against immunity. They voted to prevent these witnesses from telling the truth to the American people. I want to tell the American people a little bit about who these witnesses are. Two of these witnesses were employees of Johnny Chung. They were involved in his conduit contribution schemes, bringing money from illegal sources into the DNC. They were involved in setting up many of his meetings at the White House and with other government officials. Kent La is a very important witness. He is a business associate of Ted Sioeng, one of the people that had fled the country. He is the U.S. distributor of Red Pagoda Mountain cigarettes. Ted Sioeng has a major stake in these cigarettes. This is the best selling brand of cigarettes in China. This company is owned by the Communist Chinese Government. It is the third largest cigarette selling in the world. This company is owned by the Chinese Government, and it is a convenient way to funnel money into campaigns in the United States by Ted Sioeng, Kent La, and others. Ted Sioeng and his associates gave $400,000 in contributions to the Democrat National Committee. Of that amount, Kent La gave $50,000. Was that money from Red Pagoda cigarettes from the Chinese Communist Government? We need to find out. The American people have a right to know. Every witness that we have spoken to says that ``If you want to understand Ted Sioeng, you have got to talk to Kent La.'' And that is one of the people we want to talk to, but we have to get immunity for him first. Kent La has invoked the fifth amendment. He will not testify without immunity. But the Democrats on our committee will not grant him immunity. The Democrats have voted to block immunity. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why they want to do that. This is not a partisan issue. Ted Sioeng did not just give money to Democrats, he gave to both sides. He gave $150,000 to Republican causes as well as the Democrats. So this is not a partisan issue with Kent La and Ted Sioeng. It seems very clear that most of this half a million dollars donated by Ted Sioeng and his associates came from profits of selling Chinese cigarettes around the world. Kent La is the one individual who can tell us if this is true or not. I do not understand why my colleagues want to keep this witness from testifying and protect a major Communist Chinese cigarette company, especially when the gentleman from California, who has been such a forceful advocate of reducing smoking here in the United States, is one of those voting against immunity. We have a number of good members on my committee on both sides of the aisle. I think we have conscientious members, both Democrat and Republican, who are outraged by some of the things that have happened during the last election. I hope all of my colleagues are thinking long and hard about their votes, and I hope that they will reconsider and support immunity tomorrow. Now, in conclusion, I have tried throughout this discussion to try to make clear to the American people and my colleagues that this is an investigation that has faced countless obstacles, stone walls. We have faced obstruction from the White House. We have faced stalling from the Democrat National Committee. We have faced non-cooperation from foreign governments. We have had over 90 people take the fifth amendment or flee the country because they did not want to testify because of criminal activity. However, we will continue. There are very serious allegations of crimes that have been committed, and the American people have a right to know. I hope that tomorrow we will start to tear down the stone wall by granting immunity to these four witnesses and getting on with the investigation. None of this should be covered up. The American people have a very clear right to know if our government was compromised. They have a right to know if foreign contributions influenced our foreign policy, if it endangered our national defense. These are things the American people have a right to know, and we are going to do our dead level best to make sure they get that right and they get to know it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilege.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my support to H. Res. 423, the sense of the House offered by my colleague, good friend, and a great subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). I know he is one of the most tenacious Members of this body when it comes to fighting drugs. He has been down to Latin America, Colombia, several times. I am proud to say that I have lent the gentleman my support in many of his counternarcotics efforts. He is the leader of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug Free America, and I can think of no finer choice. As such, he is also the congressional drug czar. He has led many of the efforts and initiatives, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, myself, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), and others, which have caused the Clinton administration and its Drug Czar, General McCaffery, to take notice and to react to our proposals. The facts are simple, Mr. Speaker: Our kids are dying on the vine and the Clinton administration is looking the other way. There are nearly 20,000 drug-related deaths in our country every year. Vice President Al Gore estimates that the annual societal cost of drugs in our country exceeds $60 billion. Yet the administration's war on drugs is to treat the wounded, spending more than $15 billion on domestic treatment, prevention, and law enforcement, while spending less than $1 billion on the source and transit zone operations where the drugs are grown and transported to American streets and school yards. Clearly, we should not cut the successful demand-side programs; rather we should increase the supply-side efforts to a level which is respectable, at a very minimum. The ambitious program of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) will combine these efforts and produce a well-thought-out, common-sense approach to winning the war on drugs. The anecdotes are many, but I would like to highlight this one: According to the DEA, over the last 2 years there have been 35, count them, 35 teenage Colombian heroin overdose deaths in the Orlando, Florida, area alone. The proof is in the pudding, as Colombian heroin has taken over the East Coast market, flooding it with cheap, extremely pure and deadly heroin. Indeed, the DEA confirms that more than 65 percent of the heroin seized on U.S. streets comes from Colombia. Yet the Clinton administration is without a heroin strategy and has fought tooth and nail to stop congressional efforts to combat this deadly problem which is sweeping across every town, big or small, in the country. Simply put: The Clinton administration refuses to acknowledge the problem and accept Congress' solution. Clearly, Congress has the only heroin solution and strategy. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say I am proud to join my good friend in his courageous efforts to provide the legislative avenue to win the war on drugs. With an absence of leadership in the Clinton administration on this issue, Congress must act now before we lose another generation of American children to this deadly scourge. I salute the gentleman's efforts and hope he will let me know how I can help.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, although our intelligence community was apparently surprised by India's recent nuclear test, it was no surprise to anyone who has been following the situation there. On February 13, 1994, CBS' ``60 Minutes'' produced an expose of India's nuclear program. Reporter Steve Kroft reported that to India, ``nothing seems as important as its membership in the nuclear club.'' He interviewed a retired university professor named Direndra Sharma who said, the ``Nuclear power program is to feed our nuclear-weapons program. I have no doubt about it. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons-- two are Siamese twins. They cannot be separated.'' This report makes it clear that even then, India's nuclear program was working to develop the weapons that India exploded Monday. It is a very distressing report. I would like to place the transcript of this disturbing report in the Record in the wake of this destabilizing test, and I strongly urge my colleagues to read it carefully.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate those men and women who enforce our Nation's laws. We are a nation of laws and protecting citizens and their property from crime is one of the government's most fundamental responsibilities. This responsibility is carried out daily by men and women who choose to serve their communities as law enforcement officers. Their service often involves significant hardships and difficulties, and tragically, some of them lose their lives while performing their duties. Since records were started in 1794, more than 14,000 law enforcement officers have lost their lives in the line of duty. Sadly, every other day another law enforcement officer is killed while serving in an American community. In 1997 alone, 159 officers were killed in the line of duty. On average, more than 66,000 officers are assaulted each year, and 24,000 are injured. Law enforcement officers who have paid with their lives while defending their fellow citizens are fully deserving of the honor and recognition of the U.S. House of Representatives. May 15, 1998, is National Peace Officers Memorial Day, and I believe this resolution is a fitting tribute to those Americans who sacrificed their lives to uphold the rule of law. We as a nation can never repay the price that has been paid by police officers who have fallen in the line of duty while attempting to enforce our laws. We can, however, honor and recognize their supreme sacrifice and the great loss to their families.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I find it disheartening that President Clinton, and others opposing this legislation, would rather protect a public education system that is failing to educate the District's children, than do what is best for the families of our nation's capitol. I read Monday in Congressional Quarterly's Daily Monitor that one of the bill's opponents has called the voucher plan, quote, ``an election- year charade'' which is, quote, ``irrelevant * * * to the pressing needs of District schoolkids.'' Let me remind my colleagues that this proposal was introduced in a non-election year (last June) as a bi-partisan, bi-cameral bill. This is not an election year ``charade'', and it is not a Republican or conservative issue. If it were, we would not have the support of leading liberals in the Democratic party such as Senators Joseph Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Bob Kerrey, and former Representative Floyd Flake. That this legislation is ``irrelevant'' to the pressing needs of District schoolkids could not be further from reality. It is because the ``pressing'' needs of District schoolkids have continued to go ill- addressed, and the city's children continue to fall behind, that the need for this legislation is so desperately needed now. Two years ago, in 1996, the Financial Control Board reported that, ``The deplorable record of the District's public schools * * * has left one of the city's most important public responsibilities in a state of crisis, creating an emergency which can no longer be ignored or excused.'' That was two years ago! How many more years must District families wait out this state of ``emergency''? How many more years must children fall behind in school, increasing their risks of failure in adulthood because of a sub-standard education? So many District families cannot afford anything but the current poor quality of education in the cities' public school system. Vouchers would give these families a chance to choose a school which can provide a better education--without taking a single dime from the existing public school budget--while reforms in the public school system are being implemented. Studies show that similar voucher efforts in Cleveland and Milwaukee are having dramatic positive effects on reading and math skills. This legislation could be part of the answer to this week's devastating news about the low reading and math scores of this city's schoolchildren. Again, it is only part of the solution. We must at the same time show leadership and support for efforts to improve the infrastructure and quality of education in the public school system of our nation's capitol. We all know that there is no magic bullet. Most reform efforts will take time. However, this voucher program could provide some immediate relief to families who do not have a choice with regard to their child's education. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--please join me in support of this important legislation. Your vote for this bill is a vote to put DC's parents immediately on the road to providing a better education for their children, thus a better and brighter future for their children.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the frustration level on my committee is very high. We know that millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions have come in from foreign sources from places like Communist China, Macao and Taiwan and South America. We do not know what these people who contributed this money got for their money. Did it affect our foreign policy? Did it alter our defense strategies? Did it endanger in some way the United States of America down the road? Mr. Speaker, we need to know these things, and those who broke the law need to be brought to justice. Now we have been trying to get people to testify. Ninety-two people have fled the country or taken the fifth amendment, 92. Can my colleagues imagine that many people, 92, fleeing the country or taking the fifth amendment, many very close friends of the President who worked in the administration? They would not talk. Now we have four people who are willing to talk, and they want immunity in order to talk, and the Justice Department has said they have no objection to immunity, and yet 19 of the Democrats on my committee, every single Democrat, voted against immunity. They have erected a stone wall against the facts so the American people will not know what is going on. The American people have a right to know whether our foreign policy was altered or sold by anybody in the administration.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, since the beginning of this investigation, the White House and the Democrats on our committee have done everything they possibly can to obstruct our investigation. Mr. Ruff, the President's counsel, told us initially he was not going to claim executive privilege; this was last January, and then he did. And then we had to move a contempt citation against the President's personal counsel because he would not give us documents that were relevant to the investigation. And, finally, at the last minute, 6 months later, he gave us a letter saying we are going to give you what you want. And then in June he sent me a letter saying, to the best of my knowledge, to the best of my knowledge, you have everything that you have asked for. Three months later, we got 12 more boxes of documents, and then we found out about the White House videotapes. Ever since this investigation has gone on, they have tried to drag it out and drag it out and drag it out to keep us from getting at the facts; and we have to deal with that. They drag it out, and then they blame us for taking so long. They keep information from us, and then they blame us for taking so long. They try to keep us from talking to witnesses that want to talk to us, and then they blame us for taking too long. The four witnesses that he voted against last week for immunity have been approved for immunity by the President's Justice Department, and yet all 19 Democrats voted to obstruct our investigation by not allowing that immunity to take place, even though the President's own Attorney General okayed us getting that immunity, and that is because they are trying to protect this administration and block every single thing that we are trying to accomplish. Now, they said we have not accomplished anything, that this has been a waste of the taxpayers' money and time. Let me just go through a few things. The Democrat National Committee has returned $3 million in illegal foreign contributions that would not have been returned had it not been for the investigations that have taken place. Do we want the Chinese government giving campaign contributions to people running for president in this country? Do we want them to have influence over our foreign policy or our defense policy? I think not. And yet millions of dollars in illegal foreign contributions have come into this country to the DNC and to the President's legal defense fund and been returned, but only because of the investigation we caught him and we had to send it back. We had White House coffees where they were raising money, where they were renting out the Lincoln bedroom, doing all kinds of things to try to raise money in addition to taking money from foreign sources. The White House had people running in and out of there who were known drug dealers. Jorge Cabrera was in to meet with the President on a number of occasions. Wang Jun, a convicted drug dealer; Grigory Louchansky, another felon, had access to the President of the United States. Charlie Trie, one of the President's best friends in Little Rock, was indicted. He fled the country, took the fifth amendment. He finally came back. We had to force that issue. John Huang, a personal friend of the President who ran the Worthen Bank in Little Rock, Arkansas, a part of the Riady group, John Huang has taken the fifth, but we understand now he is willing to, with limited immunity, talk to us. But the Democrats will not help us to get the immunity we need to have these people talk, and why do they do that? Because they do not want those people to talk. They do not want the American people to know the fact about these illegal contributions and how foreign entities were buying influence in this government. They do not want the people to know that, because it is explosive and we are bent, hell bent, to get to the bottom of it and to get the facts out. Because the American people have a right to know if their government is for sale, if their foreign policy is for sale, if their defense capability is for sale. And, if it is, those who are responsible need to be brought to justice, and that is what we are all about. Now people, like my colleague from California, keep trying to defend their position. It is indefensible, and we are going to stay after until we get the facts out and get the truth out.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, a very distressing article has just come to my attention, thanks to Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan. It is a report from the April 17th issue of India Abroad that the Rand Corporation, a widely-respected think tank, predicted that within a few years, there will be a major war between India and Pakistan and that this war could involve nuclear weapons. The prospect of a nuclear war in South Asia must be distressing to anyone. This event could pose a major threat to the entire world. We should all commit ourselves to making sure that even if a war does break out, it is fought without the use of nuclear weapons. In its report, the Rand Corporation noted that ``the insurgency in Indian Kashmir has become unmanageable'' and that ``the insurgency has begun to spread into Punjab.'' The Indian Government is fond of telling us that there is no support for independence in Punjab, Khalistan. Yet Rand Corporation, which has no interest in promoting either side, tells us that the ``insurgency'' is spreading into Punjab, Kahlistan. This disastrous scenario is one more reason the United States, as the world's only remaining superpower, should support freedom for Khalistan, the Sikh homeland that declared its independence on October 7, 1987, and the other nations in South Asia that are seeking their freedom. An internationally recognized and independent Khalistan could serve as a buffer between both India and Pakistan. This would be in the best interests of India, Pakistan, the United States, and the whole world. Mr. Speaker, it is time for this Congress to go on record in support of a free and fair plebiscite on the political status of Khalistan. It is time to demand that India keep its promise made in 1948 to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir. That is the democratic way to settle these issues. It is also the best way to prevent South Asia from becoming the tinderbox of a nuclear disaster for the entire world. I would like to enter the India Abroad article into the Record, and I strongly urge my colleagues to read it carefully. [From India Abroad, Apr. 17, 1998] Think Tank Predicts India-Pakistan War (By Aziz Haniffa) Washington--A scenario prepared for the Pentagon by the semi-official Rand Corporation, a highly regarded think tank which receives some Federal funding, finds large-scale humanitarian operations in a nuclear combat zone in South Asia following the year 2005, which is fueled by an ``unmanageable'' situation in Kashmir. The scenario, contained in Rand's report titled ``Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century: Regional Futures and U.S. Strategy,'' paints a picture where ``the insurgency in Indian Kashmir has become unmanageable,'' so much so that ``despite the best efforts of the Indian government, the insurgency has begun to spread into Punjab.'' ``Recognizing that it has been left behind in its conventional military competition with India,'' the scenario notes, ``Pakistan sees these revolts as a way of weakening its great rival and increases its material and diplomatic support, including training and sanctuary, to both insurgencies.'' By early the following year, it predicts, ``Pakistan's involvement--never precisely subtle to begin with--becomes highly visible when two Pakistan soldiers, acting as trainers for Kashmiri insurgents, are captured in an Indian commando raid on a rebel-controlled village.'' According to the scenario, ``India warns Pakistan to desist from supporting the insurgencies and threatens dire consequences. Pakistan initiates diplomatic efforts to isolate India while increasing levels of covert support for the insurgents.'' In the spring of 2006, the scenario shows that ``India dramatically increases its counter-insurgency operations . . . and the rebels are pushed into precipitate retreat.'' Pakistan's response, it says, is ``by infiltrating a number of special-forces teams, which attack military installations.'' India then mobilizes for war ``and launches major attacks all along the international border, accompanied by an intense air campaign.'' Consequently, according to the Rand scenario, ``the Indian Army makes significant penetrations in the desert sector and achieves a more limited advance in Punjab, capturing Lahore and heading north toward Rawalpindi and Islamabad.'' Additionally, ``a supporting attack from Kashmir is poised to go at the proper moment,'' and conventional missile and air strikes ``have done extensive damage to Pakistani military infrastructure, while India's air bases, in particular, have been hit hard by the Pakistanis.'' The scenario notes that ``fearful that the Indians will use their emerging air superiority to locate and destroy the Pakistani nuclear arsenal and perceiving their military situation as desperate,'' Islamabad demands that India cease all offensive operations and withdraw from occupied Pakistani territory ``or face utter destruction.'' But it paints a picture of India pressing on with its conventional attacks while announcing that while it would not ``initiate the escalation of the conflict,'' it would ``surely respond in a * * * devastating manner'' to any Pakistani gambit. Bringing in the nuclear dimension to its scenario, the Rand report then notes that as Indian forces ``continue to press forward, Pakistan detonates a small fission bomb on an Indian armored formation in an unpopulated area of the desert border region; it is unclear whether the weapon was intended to go off over Pakistani or Indian territory.'' India responds by destroying a Pakistani air base with a two-weapon nuclear attack. Condemning the ``escalation'' to homeland attacks, Pakistan then attacks the Indian city of Jodphur with a 20-kiloton weapon and demands cessation of hostilities. But India strikes Hyderabad with a weapon assessed to be 200 kiloton and threatens ``10 times'' more destruction if any more nuclear weapons are used during the conflict. Pakistan then offers a cease fire. Meanwhile, according to the scenario, ``pictures and descriptions of the devastation in Jodhpur and Hyderabad are broadcast worldwide, and Internet jockeys--playing the role ham radio operators often have in other disasters--transmit horrifying descriptions of the suffering of the civilian victims on both sides.'' This results in the United Nations immediately endorsing a massive relief effort, ``which only the United States--with its airlift fleet and rapidly deployable logistics capability--can lead.'' Thus, within 48 hours--after the cease-fire has been accepted by India but before it is firmly in place--``the advance echelons of multinational, but predominantly American, relief forces begin arriving in India and Pakistan.'' In noting the constraints in such a scenario, the Rand report notes the war has rendered many air bases in both India and Pakistan only marginally usable for airlift operations. ``U.S. citizens,'' it states, ``are scattered throughout both countries, and the host governments' attitudes toward their evacuation are not known.'' The U.S. President meanwhile has assured the nation in a broadcast address that only the ``smallest practical number'' of troops will be deployed on the ground in either India or Pakistan. In a preface to the report, Rand said the study, sponsored by the Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans and Operations, ``was intended to serve Air Force longrange planning needs.'' It said the ``findings are also relevant to broader ongoing debates within the Department of Defense and elsewhere.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this historic bipartisan legislation restores the word trust to the Highway Trust Fund. For years the Congress has spent money dedicated to Highway Trust Fund on wasteful government programs, at the expense of our National transportation infrastructure. A trust fund is exactly that, a trust fund. Whether it is the Transportation Trust Fund or the Social Security Trust Fund, we need to restore the trust. In addition, BESTEA, goes a long way towards restoring funding equity to donor states like Indiana. The historic shortfall and inequity in Federal transportation funding in Indiana has left Hoosiers with an old, congested, and inadequate infrastructure. Allowing the gasoline taxes paid by Hoosiers to be spent in Indiana will allow Indiana to modernize our transportation infrastructure for the 21st century. This legislation distributes funds more equitably among States under the revised funding formulas. I want to thank and commend Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Oberstar and the Members of the Committee for their hard work and encourage them to fight to maintain the equity levels in this bill when this legislation is debated in conference.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I was going to take a 5-minute special order, but because of all the tactics that have been employed today, I will not have that time to get into the details. I would just like to say that the outrage that has been expressed regarding the campaign finance reform bill should also include the dilatory tactics employed by the White House in keeping the Independent Counsel from getting information that is necessary to conclude his investigation into illegal campaign finances and into the allegations that took place down at the White House regarding Ms. Lewinsky. Now the White House is claiming executive privilege to drag this investigation out and drag it out and drag it out and keep Mr. Starr from getting to the bottom of it. They have done this on four separate occasions here in the House of Representatives by claiming executive privilege. It did not work. They have done it three times in the courts, and it did not work. It will not work this time. But the White House continues to drag it out and drag it out. And the President continues to take these trips abroad to try to take attention away from this scandal that is taking place. It will not work. But the President should make a clean breast of this and stop this from going on and on and on as he has over the past several months. He should not claim executive privilege. It has not worked in the past, and it will not work now.