Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. I would like to illuminate this issue a little bit from my colleagues who are getting their information from where I do not know. First of all, India is getting $52 million in developmental assistance from the United States of America in foreign aid. I know the American people are tickled to death that after 50 years of independence we are still giving $52 million to India in developmental assistance, and that is not all. We are giving them millions more in other areas as well. All I am saying with this amendment, instead of giving them $52 million of American taxpayers money, that we cut that to $42 million. I would like to have the American people vote on whether they want to give any money to India, but that probably will not happen. But I would also like to ask them if they would like to cut maybe 25 percent of the developmental assistance and cut it to $42 million instead of $52 million, and I bet most Americans would go along with that. The American people do not want to give money to a country that has been independent for 50 years. But let us get to the point of the human rights violations that one of my colleagues just said indicates I am living in the past. On July 12, 1997, that is really living in the past, that is 1 month ago, 1 month ago, in Bombay, India, 33 black untouchables were killed by the Indian police during demonstrations. They still have the caste system over there and if you are black, you are the lowest form of animal life, according to that government, and you can be killed for just touching a Brahman and they will not prosecute. That is today, not 5 years ago or 10 years ago. And they killed 33 of them just a month ago. That is living in the past. On July 8, 1997, 36 people were killed in a train bombing in Punjab, and two ministers of the Punjab government have blamed the police for that. That was 1 month ago, and the bombing occurred a day after in July that nine policemen were convicted of murder. That is living in the past. On March 15, 3 or 4 months ago, 1997, a death squad picked up Kashmir Singh, an opposition party member, he was thrown in a van, he was tortured, he was murdered and they tossed his bullet-ridden body out on the side of the road. That is ancient history. That was 4 months ago. This guy here was scalped and his fingers were cut off and he was tortured to death. That is not ancient history, that is recently. If there is no problem, why are there still 550,000 troops in Kashmir? Why are there still 550,000 troops in Punjab enforcing martial law where people are afraid to even go out of their houses? Women are still being gang raped. People are being taken out of their homes never to be seen again, found in canals with their hands tied behind their back and their feet tied together and drowned. That is going on today. Yet we continue to ignore it. My colleagues say they have got a human rights group over there that they have established that is really looking into these things. India has established an Indian human rights group. That is correct. But why will they not let Amnesty International into Kashmir and Punjab?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] be given 2 additional minutes.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding. Let me say the caste system is still in effect in India, and the lowest caste in India is the Dhalits, or the black people who live there. And the people who are in the higher castes, in the past if they were touched, almost without impunity can inflict pain, suffering, and even kill people in these lower castes. That is a system that I think we in the United States should abhor, and I think the people, until the Black Caucus who fought for civil rights for so many years and are starting to get a modicum of success, should be very concerned about the prejudice that exists in India. If I implied it was a government policy, that was incorrect, but it is a policy of the system over there that exists; and they look the other way when people are tortured and killed that are from a lower caste. But the fact of the matter is, I have talked about the repression of that government, government genocide and government repression. Just recently 1,000 cases of unidentified bodies were documented and cremated by the military. The fact is there still are 550,000 troops in Kashmir and Punjab; women are still being gang-raped, people are being tortured, taken out of their houses in the middle of the night without judicial process, never to be seen again. These are things we should abhor as a nation. We certainly shouldn't be giving a large amount of foreign aid to a country that continues to perpetrate these kinds of atrocities with government sanctions. I think my colleague from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, made a very salient point when he said this country is spending more money, I think, almost than any country from that region, on military hardware and nuclear weaponry; and at the same time, they are asking us for foreign aid. It just doesn't make sense. All I ask for is we cut the aid by 25 percent.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to double check amendments 38 and 40. Now 38 is the one that we are on?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, people are afraid to go outside at night and they worry about that knock on the door that we remember back during the horrible perils of Hitler in World War II when the Jews were taken out in the middle of the night, never to be seen again. That is going on today in Punjab and Kashmir and Nagaland in India. It is not the Indian people. We are not taking issue with the Indian people. It is the repressive policies of the Indian military and the Indian government. On July 12, 1997, just about a month ago, a month and a half, in Bombay, 33 Dalits, those are called black untouchables that I would say to my friends in the Black Caucus, they ought to listen to this, black untouchables, were killed by the Indian police during demonstrations. Thirty-three of them were killed. On July 8, 1997, 36 people were killed in a train bombing in Punjab and 2 ministers of the Punjab government have blamed the Punjab police. The bombing occurred a day after 9 policemen were convicted of murder. Nine policemen were convicted of murder a day after this bombing occurred. On March 15, 1997, a death squad picked up Kashmir Singh, an opposition party member. He was thrown in a van, tortured and murdered. Finally his bullet ridden body was dumped on the roadside. These military forces operate beyond the law and with complete impunity and the world does not know because they will not let human rights groups in there, they will not let the international Red Cross in there, they will not let TV in there because they do not want the world to see. We heard about Bosnia, we heard about Somalia, we heard about Ethiopia when Mengistu was there, but we do not hear about what is going on over there because they will not let us in. The Indian lobby has a lot of friends in the Congress who are going to be their spokesmen today and they will be speaking up for them. I presume I will be the only one speaking for the people in Kashmir, Punjab and Nagaland, but I do not mind that. We should not support a government that condones widespread abuses with our tax dollars. All I am asking for is to send a signal. Cut 25 percent of the development aid we are sending to India. We probably should not be sending it there anyhow, any of it. But at least cut 25 percent to send a very strong signal that we do not support a government that allows those human rights abuses to take place. Mr. Chairman, the Sikhs, the Muslims, the Christians, the untouchables, and the women of India are desperately looking to this Congress for help. The time has come for action. It is time for America to take a stand and to pass this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration has requested $56 million this year for development aid to India. India already receives $51 million. That means a $4.5 to $5 million increase from last year. My amendment would not allow more than $42 million to go. That is a 25- percent cut. That is a fair figure, and it sends a strong signal. I would like to point out one more thing. We have here a picture, and this is the latest picture of what is going on in India. This is the tortured body of an unidentified Sikh. The Indian police have literally scalped this man. It is a young fellow, the police have seared his body with a hot iron rod and they cut off his fingers. That is what is going on today and that is what my colleagues are going to be saying does not occur. But I am telling Members it is here, it is happening. Women are being gang-raped in Kashmir because they are Muslim and they know if they are defiled, they will not be married, because of their religion and they take them out and gang-rape them and hold their husbands inside. It is a horrible thing that is going on over there and we keep giving aid to this country. This country has not been a friend of the United States in the past. During the cold war they supported the Soviet Union. They do not vote with us in the United Nations. Yet we continue to give them support. We ought to send a signal to them, at least on this one issue. Human rights violations, for God's sake, should not be tolerated anyplace in the world, and it is going on by the hundreds of thousands over there. We need to send them a signal.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I read Cyrano de Bergerac as a boy. And when I read Cyrano de Bergerac, at one point in the play he is challenged by what he thought were 100 of the opponents. He was in the bakery shop and his friends came in. There were 100 of the enemy trying to kill his friends. And he said he thought the lovely Roxanne was in love with him. And he pulled out his sword and he ran to the door and said, only a 100. I do not mind if it is five or ten of my colleagues against me, as long as we have a fair distribution of the time. I feel kind of honored that I would be put in the same category as Cyrano de Bergerac. Let me get to the point of the debate, talking about on this particular issue. Mr. Chairman, we talk about tragedies and human rights violations all over the world. Right now, in the news today, they were talking about digging up possibly hundreds, maybe thousands of bodies in Bosnia. And that is a tragedy. That is something we should be very concerned about because human rights violations, wherever they occur, should be brought to the attention of the world and should be stopped. We reprimand China for its draconian abortion policies and we threaten to stop international military and educational training, IMET, from Indonesia for abuses in East Timor. We talk about the struggles in Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia that I just alluded to. We even criticize longstanding allies like Turkey for its treatment of its Kurdish citizens without addressing the brutal murders carried out by the PKK, a Kurdish Marxist terrorist organization. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there is one human rights issue that continues to escape the attention of this administration and this country and some Members of the Congress and especially the media. And that issue involves India and its human rights abuses and the violations against the Sikhs and the Kashmiris and the Christians in Nagaland and the plight of the untouchables, the lowest caste in India's caste system. Mr. Chairman, the Indian Government is one of the world's worst human rights abusers. You may ask, if that is true, why does not the world know? It is because Amnesty International and the International Red Cross is not allowed into the places where they are perpetrating these atrocities. In Punjab, in Kashmir, in Nagaland. Let me just tell my colleagues, since 1947, over 200,000 Christians have been killed in Nagaland. I know it is horrible what is going on in Bosnia, and what has gone on in Bosnia. But 200,000 Christians have been killed since 1947 by the Indian Government and their troops in Nagaland since 1947. A quarter of a million, 250,000 Sikhs, have been killed in Punjab between 1984 and 1992, and more since then. Those are the latest numbers we have that we think are accurate. Fifty-three thousand Muslims have been killed in Kashmir since 1988. For the past 15 years, I have been coming to this well to call attention to Punjab, where the Indian military receives cash bounties for the slaughter of innocent children and, to justify their action, these people are labeled terrorists, these kids. According to our own State Department, the United States State Department, India paid over 41,000 cash bounties to police for killing innocent people from 1991 to 1993 alone. Also in Punjab, Sikhs are picked up in the middle of the night only to be found floating dead in canals with their hands and feet bound together, and there is documentation to that fact, and many are never found. Recently India's Central Bureau of Investigation, the CBI, told the Supreme Court that it had confirmed nearly 1,000 cases of unidentified bodies that were cremated by their military. They just happened to find 1,000 bodies and burned them up. Where did they come from? I submit they came from the same source that I was talking about just a moment ago, from the Indian troops in Kashmir and Punjab and Nagaland. It does not get any better in Kashmir. Women, because of their Muslim beliefs, are taken out of their homes in the middle of the night and are gang-raped by Indian troops while their husbands are forced to stay in the House at gunpoint. This is a fact. This is not just me talking. It is a fact. It was hoped that the new government in Delhi and Punjab would stop the repression which the Indian Supreme Court describes as worse than a genocide. The Indian Supreme Court describes what is going on as worse than a genocide. Mr. Chairman, opponents will say that the recent election in Punjab of a Sikh-dominated coalition and the fact that an untouchable is now the President of India is evidence of the new democratic process. But I can tell my colleagues that this new government in Punjab is closely aligned with the authoritarian Prime Minister Gudjaral of India and India's untouchable President is merely a figurehead. Mr. Chairman, would democracies continue the rampant campaign of genocide? There are 550,000 troops, Indian troops in Punjab and 550,000 Indian troops in Kashmir.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I think the Rules of the House on division of time, like this is, the proponents and the opponents have an equal amount of time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to give a specific example of how the School of the Americas helps America, the United States of America. The Colombian National Police, which is one of our frontline combatant units against the drug cartels in Colombia, gets a great deal of training from the School of the Americas. The first 40 hours of their training is in the area of human rights. General Serrano and the Colombian police because of that have a stellar human rights record. Our State Department has told us in committee that the Colombian National Police, which is a recipient, a beneficiary of the School of the Americas, has an almost 100 percent human rights record. I believe it is because of the School of the Americas, because of the training they are getting there. The thing that is interesting about this is these people who are trained in the School of the Americas, the Colombian National Police that are fighting the war against drugs, against the Colombian drug cartel, lay their lives on the line every single day not just for their people in their country but for our kids in America who are the recipients of the drugs that are coming out of Colombia and Latin America and Central America. For us to close down the School of the Americas and to cut off funding would be a giant step, a giant step in the wrong direction. The last point I want to make very briefly is this. We know for a fact that the people in Colombia who are suffering human rights abuses go to the Colombian National Police, who have been trained in how to deal with human rights abuses for protection. I think it would be a terrible mistake for us to cut off funding for this very important program if for no other reason because of the Colombian National Police who are fighting so hard every single day to protect our kids from drugs and to stop the flow of drugs coming into America.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has five Members against one. I think that is fair odds. But I do not want to give up time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for his participation.

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

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 cuts the funding level for the General Accounting Office by $9 million from the fiscal year 1997 funding level. This cut is unwise and unfair and should be reversed in Conference. Two years ago, the GAO and House and Senate Appropriators reached an agreement on a two-year plan to reduce GAO's budget. As part of that agreement, GAO's budget has been reduced by 25 percent and its staffing has dropped below 3,500--its lowest level in almost 60 years. These cuts have taken a heavy toll. Hiring and promotions have been frozen for a long time. Staff reductions have diminished expertise in key areas. And needed investments in information technology have been placed on hold. Additional cuts now are not only a violation of that agreement, they will result in a loss of morale and a further loss in staff expertise as the agency's future is cast in doubt. Instead of pursuing this foolish course of action, the House should have honored the agreement over funding for the GAO. It could easily have made up for the revenue difference by refusing to fund the Government Reform and Oversight's partisan witch-hunt into campaign fundraising practices. The budget for that ``investigation'' is an extravagant waste of taxpayers' money. The Senate is doing a better, and fairer, job while the House's investigation is in a shambles. We are wasting millions of dollars on a mistake-plagued House investigation which duplicates the more comprehensive and bipartisan efforts of the Senate. Instead of funding partisan investigations in the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, let's give money to those that can really use it, the professional auditors and investigators of the GAO. The Senate has also taken a much wiser approach to GAO's funding, and kept faith with the agreement reached two years ago. By funding GAO at their requested level, the Senate has provided less than a 2 percent increase; not enough for any staff or program increases, just enough to continue current operations at their present levels. In essence it is a cost of living increase. This is certainly the least Congress should provide for the GAO, our own investigative arm. The cuts in the House bill are penny wise and pound foolish because the GAO remains an excellent investment for the American taxpayer. The financial benefits from its work in the last five years alone total over $103 billion. If we in Congress are to continue doing our jobs well, we need a strong and effective General Accounting Office. I urge my colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee to carefully consider these issues during the conference with the Senate on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of peace and stability on the Island of Cyprus. However, Mr. Speaker, if there is to be a resolution of the Cyprus issue, then there must be a balanced approach giving both Greeks and Turks equal voice both in the process and in the government. If this resolution intends to bestow sole rule of Cyprus to the Greek community, then I rise in strong opposition. We have been down that blood-soaked road before when in the 1960's and 1970's, Archbishop Makarios adopted a policy of Enosis, in an attempt to unite Cyprus with Greece. Fighting broke out, many Turkish Cypriots were killed, in some cases, slaughtered, and the Turkish Government, as one of the legal guarantors of the Republic of Cyprus, felt, in order to protect the lives and safeguard the property of the Turkish Cypriots, that military intervention was in order. Since 1974, there has been a de facto military balance on the island which has prevented additional bloodshed. An upset in this balance could result in future hostilities. The international community cannot make the problem go away between the Greeks and Turks on the island of Cyprus, only those two parties can. Having said that Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned with some of the language in House Concurrent Resolution 81. The language of the resolution states, ``Whereas the prospect of the accession by Cyprus to the European Union, which the United States has actively supported, could serve as a catalyst for a solution to the Cyprus problem.'' This language does not give any incentive to the Greek Cypriots to settle with the Turkish Cypriots. Moreover, on February 24, 1997, Greece alone objected to a draft common EU position demanding that ``all Cypriots be able to participate in the accession process'' because, according to Athens, its reference to Turkish Cypriots contradicts U.N. and EU policies that one internationally recognized Cyprus Government is competent to negotiate for the state. The resolved clauses are especially troubling. The second resolved clause states, ``The Congress considers lasting peace and stability on Cyprus could best be secured by a process of complete demilitarization leading to the withdrawal of all foreign occupation forces, * * *, and providing for alternative internationally acceptable and effective security arrangements as negotiated by the parties.'' Mr. Speaker, this to me suggests that Turkey is directed to withdrawal from the island of Cyprus without direct input from the Turkish Cypriot community. This is not possible without the creation of a security apparatus which is found acceptable to the Turkish Cypriot community. The Congress needs a careful reminder into the history of Cyprus before such a suggestion is considered. I want to remind my colleagues that in 1960, when Great Britain relinquished control of the island, a bicommunal government was established with shared leadership by Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots as political equals. Neither community was to dominate the new government. Tragically, right after Britain's departure, the new President of Cyprus, a Greek Cypriot, Archbishop Makarios, began to carry out his plan for union with Greece. By December 1963, Greek Cypriots had destroyed the bicommunal character of the republic physically ousting Turkish Cypriot leaders from their elected positions and destroying over 100 Turkish Cypriot villages. For the next 11 years, Turkish Cypriots, heavily outnumbered by the Greek Cypriots, suffered great losses--human and material--in clashes initiated by Greek Cypriots and fully supported by the Greek Army. One out of every one hundred twenty Turkish Cypriots, including women, children, and the elderly, was killed during this period even with U.N. peacekeeping troops present on the island. Thousands of Turkish Cypriots were forced to flee from their homes to live in enclaves throughout the island and were, held hostage in their own land without representation in government which was stipulated in the 1960 constitution. United States Secretary of State George Ball visited Cyprus in February 1964 and concluded that Greek Cypriots ``just wanted to be left alone to kill Turkish Cypriots.'' Turkey waited for 11 years for help from the world community. None came. By 1974, Turkey could no longer stand by and watch innocent Turkish Cypriots be slaughtered by Greek Cypriots. So Turkey intervened militarily on the island which was completely legal under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee signed by the Turkish Cypriots, Turkey, Britain, Greece, and the Greek Cypriots. It clearly stated that any of the signatories had the right to intervene on Cyprus should the sovereignty of the island be threatened. These troops have posed no threat to the southern part of the island. Since the Turkish military intervention concluded in 1974, these troops have never attacked or threatened to attack the south. They are simply to ensure the security of the Turkish Cypriot community. Due to domestic considerations, we are not doing what is right and necessary on the Cyprus issue. The Cyprus conflict is an international issue relating to Turks and Greeks and, if we want to help settle the issue, we must be totally even-handed in all facets of our approach. They both must learn to live in cohabitation. Perhaps, separate sovereignty of the communities, as in the proposal of bizonal and bicommunal governance, is in the best interest of security both for the region and for the United States. That could be determined in meetings between Turkish Cypriot President Rauf Denktash and Greek Cypriot leader Glafko Clerides. Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to thank my chairman, the honorable and kind-hearted gentleman from New York, Ben Gilman, for bringing this issue to the attention of the Congress. Cyprus is a vital issue for the security of the eastern Mediterranean. The proper encouragement by the United States Congress could help both Greeks and Turks to understand that they must work together to resolve their differences.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh] for yielding me this time. I want to congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh], the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos] and the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], especially for their leadership in getting this bill to the floor and passed. I have had a personal experience in my family with breast cancer, and I do not think people realize the impact that it has until they see somebody that they care about lose their hair. They come home one day and there are tears and they say my hair is falling out because they are under chemotherapy. Then they have to cut the hair off and buy a wig. Then they go through the problems of sickness because of chemotherapy and the radiation. It is something that people cannot imagine unless they have had it happen in their own family or to somebody that they care about. That is why it is so important for us in this body and across this country to do everything we can to wipe out the last vestiges of cancer, all kinds of cancer, but especially breast cancer. One in eight women are going to get breast cancer in their lifetime. That is a statistic that we just simply cannot live with. The mammograms that we talk about women getting annually when they get above 40 years old many times misses the cancer, and so sometimes women carry that cancer in their body for 4 or 5 years before it manifests itself and many times it is too late for them to be saved. So anything that we can do, anything we can do to help bring about an end to breast cancer is something that this body ought to be working very hard to accomplish. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to add my support for this bill. It may not raise a lot of money but if it does not raise lot of money, at least it will raise a lot of awareness and people will realize that we have to make this a No. 1 priority in this country. I hope that one day everybody in this body who is sponsoring this bill and everybody who is supporting it will live to see cancer eradicated once and for all and women not having to wake up every day of their lives fearing a lump in their breast may be the end of their lives. I rise in support of H.R. 1585, the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act. I would like to commend the gentlewoman from New York, Representative Molinari, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Postal Service, Representative McHugh, for the good work they have done on this important piece of legislation. Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer in women. In 1996, an estimated 184,000 women were diagnosed with breast cancer and 46,000 died of the disease. Women continue to face a one in eight chance of developing breast cancer during their lifetime. Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for all women aged 35-44. Congress has made much progress in the past few years in providing funding for breast cancer research. During the 104th Congress we increased breast cancer research by increasing funding to the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense's Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program by 25 percent For fiscal year 1998, the House Appropriations Committee has approved a 9-percent funding increase to the NIH--$704 million over last year's appropriation. However, in spite of the significant research advances that have been made in regard to breast cancer, there is still much more to be done. We still do not know what causes breast cancer, how to prevent it, or how to cure it. We must continue to remain committed to investment in breast cancer research until we find out these answers. The more we invest in breast cancer research, the more we will be able to offer hope to women and their families. For these reasons, I would like to voice my strong support for the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act. This bill would provide another funding stream for breast cancer research. I would like to point out that this is an experimental program that seeks to determine whether or not this is an effective way to raise money for breast cancer research. Under this bill, the program will sunset after 2 years and GAO is required to do a study to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of this type of fundraising. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. Hopefully, through passage of this bill, the funding raised from this stamp will help bring us closer to eradicating breast cancer once and for all.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose MFN for China. My reasons to defeat MFN. human rights Every year since 1980, when President Carter first extended China MFN, supporters have argued that this action will help the United States promote human rights in China. It has failed. State Department's own Country Reports on Human Rights (January 1997) admits: The Chinese Government continued to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses, in violation of internationally accepted norms, stemming from the authorities' intolerance of dissent, fear of unrest, and the absence or inadequacy of laws protecting basic freedoms. * * * Overall in 1996, the authorities stepped up efforts to cut off expressions of protest or criticism. And from Clinton's Assistant Secretary for Asia: Frankly, on the human rights front, the situation has deteriorated * * * They're rounding up dissidents, harassing them more. In addition: Over 1,000 forced labor camps; harvest and sale of organs from executed prisoners; forced abortions; and persecution of religious believers. Nongovernment churches are outlawed. Independent worshipers of the government church are harassed and imprisoned. Their house churches are being forcibly closed or destroyed. national security Selling nuclear material, weapons and military technology to rogue states (ex: Iran) Purchased 46 American-made supercomputers which could design nuclear warheads for missiles capable of reaching the United States. COSCO lease of Long Beach Port gives PLA base of operations in the United States. trade Economic espionage: U.S. workers lose when U.S. technology is stolen. Violations of intellectual property rights: $40 billion trade deficit; 2 percent of United States exports are allowed in China, 33 percent of China's exports come to United States. China charges American products with huge tariffs: Even if we would extend least-favored-nation [LFN] status to China, their tarrifs would still tower ours. China import tax on United States cars: 50 percent. United States import tax on LFN cars: 25 percent, that is one-half the rate charged by China. China duty on shoes: 50 to 60 percent. United States duty on LFN shoes: 35 percent. Allegations of attempting to influence our Presidential elections through campaign contributions. Vote ``yes'' for House Concurrent Resolution 79. Yet, the administration has chosen to stand up to China on only one issue: intellectual property rights. When they were faced with trade sanctions over this issue, they backed down. If this type of muscular action is justified for the music industry, then it is justified for persecuted Christians, murdered infants, and nuclear proliferation. We need to put away the carrots and break out the sticks. The President's policy isn't just one of engagement, it's a see-no-evil strategy.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1553, which I introduced in May, along with Congressman Henry Waxman and Congressman Louis Stokes. H.R. 1553 amends the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 to provide one additional year for the Assassination Records Review Board to complete its work, which is to review and publicly release documents relating to the Kennedy assassination at the earliest possible date. The American people have a right to demand accountability by the Federal Government regarding the Kennedy assassination records. By allowing the Review Board to finish its work and make the Kennedy assassination documents public, Congress will demonstrate to Americans that the Government has nothing to hide. H.R. 1553 would extend the Review Board's September 30, 1997, termination date under current law to September 30, 1998. H.R. 1553 authorizes $1.6 million in fiscal year 1998 for this purpose. I would note that Congressman Stokes, who is an original cosponsor of my bill, sponsored the 1992 act in the House and chaired the House Select Committee on Assassinations that was established in 1976. The purpose of the 1992 legislation was to publicly release records relating to the Kennedy assassination at the earliest possible date. The Assassination Records Review Board was set up to review and release the voluminous amounts of information in the Government's possession. The FBI, the Secret Service, the CIA, the Warren Commission, the Rockefeller Commission, the Church Committee in the Senate, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations have all held assassination records, and related documents have also been in the possession of certain State and local authorities as well as private citizens. When the 1992 legislation was considered, nearly 1 million pages of data compiled by official investigations of the assassination had not been made available to the public, some 30 years after the tragedy. In creating the Review Board, Congress believed that simply making all relevant information available to the public was the best way to respond to the continuing high level of interest in the Kennedy assassination, and was preferable to undertaking a new congressional investigation. The 1992 law requires the Review Board to presume that documents relating to the assassination should be made public unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. As a result of the Review Board's efforts, more than 14,000 documents have been transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration for inclusion in the JFK collection. That collection now totals approximately 3.7 million pages and is used extensively by researchers from all over the United States. The Review Board was in the news in April of this year when it voted to make public the Abraham Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination. The John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 originally provided a 3-year timetable for the Assassination Records Review Board to complete its work. Unfortunately, there were lengthy delays in the appointment of board members, and as a consequence, the Review Board was scheduled to cease operations before it began its work. Therefore, in 1994, Congress ``restarted the clock'' by extending the 1992 law's termination date for 1 year, to September 30, 1996. The Review Board subsequently exercised its authority to continue operating for one additional year, until September 30, 1997. Because the review process proved to be more complex and time-consuming than anticipated, the President included in his fiscal year 1998 budget a request for a 1-year extension of the Review Board's authorization. I support the Assassination Records Review Board's request for a 1- year extension of its authorization so that it can complete its mission in a professional and thorough manner. However, let me make it very clear that, as chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, I do not intend to support any additional extension of the Review Board's life beyond September 30, 1998. On June 4, 1997, the chairman of the Review Board, John Tunheim, testified before the National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice Subcommittee, and in his testimony he assured the subcommittee that one additional year would be sufficient for the Review Board to finish its work. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1553.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding this time to me. I would just like to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we are not going to try to intimidate anybody. That is first; and second, we are going to be working with the Senate wherever possible. I am going to be meeting with Senator Thompson next week and his staff to coordinate our activities. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues a few of the things about which this committee is going to be investigating and why. We are investigating a possible massive scheme, massive scheme of funneling millions of dollars in foreign money into the U.S. electoral system. We are investigating allegations that the Chinese Government at the highest levels decided to infiltrate our political system. We are investigating allegations of gross misuse of our national security structure including the national security council and the CIA. We are investigating the White House that became a frequent stop, a frequent stop for major donors with foreign ties who have now fled the country or taken the fifth amendment. Here are some key facts to prove the critical importance of this investigation, and I hope my colleagues will look at this chart. Charlie Trie, a friend of the President for 20 years, has reportedly fled the country and is in the People's Republic of China, Communist China, to avoid being questioned about wire transfers of over $1 million from Asian banks to him at the same time that he was giving in excess of $200,000 to the Democrat National Committee and more than $600,000 to the President's legal defense fund. All of that money has been returned, the $600,000. John Huang, a friend of the President's who is pleading the fifth amendment raised between $3 and $4 million for the Democrat National Committee. The DNC is currently pledged to return almost half of that money. Huang is also under investigation for allegedly disclosing secret information to his former employer the Lippo Bank that has ties with the Chinese Communist Government and possibly the Chinese Government itself, and he did this while he was at the Commerce Department and the Democrat National Committee. Roger Tamraz, who was recently detained by the Government of Georgia because there was an international arrest warrant for him issued by Lebanon, received repeated meetings with President Clinton at a time when he was trying to get the administration support to build a pipeline in Asia despite objections by the National Security Council. A NSC staffer was recently reported as saying that she felt pressured to cooperate with Mr. Tamraz because of $200,000 in democrat contributions. Former DNC chairman, the chairman of the DNC, Don Fowler reportedly tried to manipulate the CIA to provide favorable information about Roger Tamraz so that the National Security Council would back off their objections to his going to the White House to meet with the President. The NSC lost that battle, and so did our national security because he did go to the White House and he did meet with the President. Another example of national security concerns being brushed aside in favor of campaign cash is a case of Johnny Chung. He raised $366,000 in contributions returned by the DNC. He visited the White House 49 times despite warnings by the National Security Council that he was a hustler and should not be there. Yogesh Gandhi was barred from giving money to President Clinton at the White House because of his dubious background, but that did not stop the White House. Craig Livingston and John Huang arranged a meeting two blocks away from the White House at a hotel where the President did meet with him and $325,000 was subsequently given to the DNC. Former third ranking Justice Department official and convicted felon, Webster Hubbell, between June 21, l994, and June 25, 1994, there were 10 meetings at the White House, some involving the President regarding whether or not what he was going to be doing between the time he left the Justice Department and was indicted, and after the tenth meeting, 2 days later the Lippo Group the Riadys gave him $100,000 in legal fees, and many people believed, myself included, that that might have been hush money. In fact Abe Rosenthal, a supporter of the President, said in a New York Times column it would not take a particularly suspicious mind let alone a prosecutor's to see high paying jobs as hush money to keep a defendant silent. Pauline Kanchanalak, the mysterious contributor from Thailand, was one of John Huang's associates. She visited the White House 30 times, raised money for the DNC, and she fled the country. We cannot get her even with a subpoena. Ted Sioeng, yet another dubious DNC contributor, is reportedly in Hong Kong now. He has avoided any questions about his contributions totaling $355,000 to the DNC. He is under investigation right now, but we cannot get to him. He also worked with the Chinese Government, we believe, trying to acquire influence for China. Let me just say in closing, there is substantial reasons why this investigation must go forward. We must depose these witnesses and we need the help of this body to get that job done.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Let me just say that I have served in this body now for 15 years. I have served with no finer Congressman or Congresswoman than Andy Jacobs, Jr. Andy is a dear friend of mine. I know some of my Democrat colleagues might find that interesting, since he comes from the other party, but he is one of the finest people I know. He is a good father, a good husband. And he is a great American. He really cares about this country. We have heard a lot of the good things about Andy today. He served in this body for 30 years. But he was such a man of integrity that I think everybody who knew him on both sides of the aisle agreed that here was a man who, if he gave you his word, you could bet the house on it because he would not break his word. I will just say this about Andy. If I could pick one Member that I would trust with everything I own including my family, it would be Andy Jacobs, Jr. He is that kind of a person. And that is about as high a regard as I can hold anyone. Some other things that a lot of my colleagues may not know is Andy was a marine. He did not talk about this very much. But during the Korean war, one of his buddies was killed. And it was of course the frozen fields of Korea during the war over there that Andy really showed what kind of a man he was. He carried on his back for almost 3 days his dead comrade back to our lines so that he could be properly honored and buried. That is the kind of guy Andy Jacobs is. If we had 435 Members in this body like Andy Jacobs and 100 Members in the other body like Andy Jacobs, we could solve so many of the country's problems in a very rapid order because he was that kind of a man and is that kind of a man. The thing I could say that means the most to me is that Andy Jacobs is my friend and I miss him.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, John Myers is here with us today, and we are very glad to see him again. John was a leader in Indiana politics for over 30 years. He was active in civic affairs as well as political affairs and contributed mightily to Indiana, as well as the entire country. John worked very hard on the Committee on Appropriations over the years, not only on energy and water issues, but also on infrastructure issues that dealt with the entire country. People across this Nation that do not know who John Myers is owe him a debt of gratitude for the hard work he put forth on their behalf throughout this country. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that when they had a problem that needed to be solved dealing with the Committee on Appropriations or the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, John was always there and willing to listen and help out. In addition to that, he is highly regarded by his friends and neighbors, people who have known him all these years. He used to fly home in the wee hours of the morning or late at night to meet with farmers to talk to them about agricultural problems in his district, when a lot of other Congressmen would not take the time and effort to do that. So John went out of his way to do the job that he was assigned to do and he did it extremely well. He was a fiscal conservative, a person who believed in cutting taxes instead of raising them. He is one of the guys that we really miss around here. John was one of the greats. I wish John and his wife Carol the very best. I hope you have a great retirement, John. Come back and visit us often. It is fitting and appropriate that we name a post office after him since the people in Terre Haute in years to come will know who John Myers was and what he did for his State and community.