Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, H.R. 1836, the Federal Employee Health Care Protection Act of 1997. This is significant legislation for our Federal employees and taxpayers because it will help strengthen the integrity and standards of the Federal Employees Health Benefit [FEHB] Program, and allow it to maintain its reputation as a high quality and cost-effective program. H.R. 1836 includes three main provisions that will improve and protect the FEHB Program. First, it gives OPM better tools to deal swiftly with health care providers who try to defraud or abuse the FEHB Program, second, it requires full disclosure of discounted rate agreements between health care providers and health benefit carriers to prevent the fraudulent use of such discounts, and third, it provides the same Federal health benefits coverage for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Federal Reserve Board employees that other Federal employees have. The FEHB Program is the largest employer-sponsored health insurance system in the country. In 1997, the $16 billion FEHB Program will insure more than 9 million Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents. Partial portability, no preexisting condition limitation, and an annual open enrollment period are facets of the FEHB Program that make it an extremely attractive health care system. The free enterprise-based program has effectively contained costs through private sector competition with limited governmental intervention. The program is often cited as a model of efficiency and effectiveness that the private sector and the public sector should attempt to replicate. The bill I introduced today will improve the program and its performance, without changing the market principles that are the key to the program's success. One of the most important provisions of this bill addresses the debarment of health care providers engaging in fraudulent practices. This provision would strengthen the ability of OPM to bar FEHB Program participation by, and impose monetary penalties on, health care providers in the FEHB Program who engage in professional or financial misconduct. Under this bill, the administrative sanctions authority would conform more closely with the Medicare Program, particularly with regard to grounds for imposing sanctions and the general availability of post-termination appellant rights. Another important component of this bill is that it would provide consistent health benefit coverage for employees of the Federal Reserve Board [FED] and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC]. A number of years ago the FED decided to drop out of the FEHB Program and offer its employees a separate health care plan. Then, in 1993, the FED elected to abandon this health care experiment and offer its employees only FEHB health care options. However, under current law, all employees must have 5 years of continuous enrollment in the FEHB Program to carry their health benefit coverage into retirement. As a result a number of employees who retired during the years when the FED had its own health care system, and some employees currently approaching retirement, are not eligible for FEHB coverage. The FDIC faces a similar situation because it plans to eliminate its alternative health insurance plan at the end of 1997, and go with FEHB options. Without this legislation, the FDIC and the Board will have to establish a non-FEHB plan for those employees who are ineligible for coverage. This would be administratively burdensome and costly to these Federal agencies and, ultimately, to taxpayers. Under this proposal, these ineligible employees would be offered FEHB coverage at no additional cost to the Government. The third key provision in this bill would require FEHB carriers and their subcontractors to disclose in writing any discounted rate contracts with health care providers. If carriers do not include the required disclosure, they will be prohibited from accessing discounts. I believe that this language is necessary because it will eliminate the practice of silent preferred provider networks [PPO's]. Under conventional PPO arrangements, networks offer enrollees discounted fees to use network providers, or preferred providers. However, under silent PPO's, these discounts are being applied to patients that are not contractually covered by the PPO network. I have great concerns over the ethics and legality of the practice of these types of organizations. The effect of such practices is to reduce carriers' free market bargaining power. It also undermines the value of, and jeopardizes the expansion of, legitimate PPO networks. According to the American Hospital Association, discounts paid to silent PPO's may account for as much as $1 billion in costs for providers throughout the industry. This type of abusive practice should not be allowed in the health care arena, and I believe that the language in this bill will address this problem and protect providers, patients, and legitimate PPO's. I believe that the changes made in this legislative proposal are important to help improve and strengthen the FEHB Program. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this essential legislation.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this weekend will mark a tragic turn of events in the history of the Sikh Nation. Thirteen years ago this Saturday, June 7, more than 20,000 Sikhs were massacred in Punjab at the Golden Temple and 38 other Sikh temples by India's military. India's genocide against the Sikh Nation has taken the lives of a staggering 250,000 Sikhs. I rise today to introduce legislation that will send a clear message to a government that has spent years practicing the torture of its own people. However, when you go home and turn on the evening news, good luck trying to find any story that reveals the plight of the Sikhs--the plight of the Kashmiris--the plight of Christians--and the plight of the untouchables, the lowest group in India's caste system. In Congress, we speak of the many tragedies that occur all over the world, especially around this time of year when this legislative body deals with the foreign aid legislation. We talk about the ongoing violent struggles between the people in Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia. We reprimand China for its draconian abortion policies. We admonish Cuba for its human rights abuses. We threaten to withhold international military and educational training [IMET] money from Indonesia for its brutal treatment of the citizens of East Timor. Mr. Speaker, the Indian Government is one of the worst human rights abusers in the world. You might say, if that is happening, why does the world not know about it? Because since the 1970's, India has barred monitoring organizations like Amnesty International from entering the country. In fact, they are the only democracy in the world that refuses to allow Amnesty International to operate independently within the country. Mr. Speaker, what does the Indian Government have to hide? There are a half-million Indian soldiers occupying the province of Punjab and another half-million occupying Kashmir. This is a recipe for disaster my friends. For the last 15 years, I have been coming to this well to call attention to Punjab, where Indian forces have received cash bounties for the murder of innocent civilians. To justify their actions, the police label these individuals, sometimes young children, as ``terrorists''. 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. Some Sikhs are not so fortunate, because many of them are never found after their abduction. Recently, India's Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI] told the Supreme Court that it had confirmed nearly 1,000 cases of unidentified bodies that were cremated by the military. And 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, while their husbands are forced to wait inside at gunpoint. These military forces operate beyond the law with complete impunity. America should not be supporting a government that condones these widespread abuses with United States tax dollars. Now is the time for India to be held accountable for its continued violation of basic human rights. Mr. Speaker, the Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, ``Untouchables'', and 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. The Human Rights in India Act, introduced by me along with my good friend and colleague Gary Condit of California, will bar development aid to India unless the government releases prisoners of conscience, ends the practice of torture by police and military forces, permits impartial investigations of reported torture and disappearances of those in custody, brings to justice police forces responsible for human rights abuses, and permits critics of the government to travel abroad. My colleagues, from this well of the House of Representatives you will hear many stories of human abuses from all around the world. Today, I ask that you think of the hundreds of thousands suffering in India. Please do not turn your back on the innocent. Give them a flicker of hope and send a strong message to the Government of India. I urge my colleagues to give the Human Rights in India Act their full consideration, and their strong support.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of H.R. 956, the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997. I would like to commend and congratulate my colleague and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] who conceived a better cooperative relationship between Government and communities in order to better fight the scourge of drugs among our Nation's youth. His diligence and commitment to this effort have shown amazing results. Beginning in his own district, the Portman community drug initiative was proof that Federal partnerships with community leaders and organizations are an extremely effective weapon in the fight against illegal drug use. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] has now turned his successful effort into this legislation before us today. I would like to also commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] for his tenacity on the drug issue and on this bill in particular. His leadership on the issue of illegal drug trafficking and illegal drug use has been outstanding, both in this Congress and in past Congresses. I thank him for shepherding this legislation through his subcommittee. I would also like to congratulate the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] and my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett], and others for their help in this effort. We, as Members of Congress, often voted on legislation that will never have a direct impact on our own districts. Today, however, through this legislation now before us, we will have the means to positively and directly impact the very cities, towns, and communities that we represent. This legislation will enable each and every one of us to go back to our districts with the resources and the knowhow to bolster our efforts to reduce the devastating effects of substance abuse that we all know is destroying America. Drug abuse has doubled in the last 5 years with the most alarming increases among 13- and 14-year-olds. Absolutely astonishing rates of drug use are chronicled in the report that accompanies this legislation, the National Household Survey on Drug Use. That survey shows that from 1994 to 1996, illegal drug use by 12- to 17-year-olds rose 78 percent. LSD use increased by 183 percent and cocaine use rose by 166 percent over those 3 years. Our young people today are clearly not seeing the risks associated with drug use the way they used to. Studies on perceived risks bear this out. One conducted by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse showed that in just 1 year the number of 12- to 17- year-olds who said they would never try an illegal drug dropped by 40 percent. Kids are not getting a clear message about drug use, about it being wrong, deadly, and illegal. They are not getting it from their parents, and regrettably they are not getting it from the leadership in this administration. This bill is very, very important. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Once again, I congratulate its sponsor, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I just want to real quickly say that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Lampson] ought to be commended for what he is doing in trying to find missing children. I think that should be an example for every Member of this House, and this shows his real bipartisan support for this kind of effort.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently detained on rollcall No. 153. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the comments of my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, are not lost on the American people. They know that when you add $1.7 million, $10 million, $20 million, $50 million, pretty soon it starts adding up into some money. They get a little concerned about that. One of the reasons why the automatic continuing resolution provision at last year's spending level is so important is so we do not shut down Government, No. 1, putting a lot of people's jobs in jeopardy in the Federal work force, but in addition to that, to make sure that the big spenders in this place do not continue to escalate the cost of Government every single year, as they have in the past. If we cannot reach agreement on a spending bill, rather than shut down government, let us just fund it at last year's level for a while, 100 percent of last year's level. That is not bad. We are not hurting anybody. They are still getting their paychecks. Government goes on. We are not cutting anything, we are just not increasing it. So the American people ought to know very clearly which side of the aisle wants to continue to increase spending, increase spending, more, more, more, all the time.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, hundreds and hundreds.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have introduced this resolution expressing the sympathy of the Congress and of the American people over the death of Chaim Herzog. I am very pleased that we were able to move this resolution to the floor very quickly and I thank the chairman of the International Relations Committee, my friend Ben Gilman of New York for his support and leadership. All of us were sadded to learn recently about the death of Chaim Herzog at the age of 78. As staunch friends of the State of Israel and the people of Israel, we share their grief and their sorrow. Chaim Herzog was truly a hero of Israel and also a great friend of America. Like Yitzhak Rabin, whose death we also mourned all too early, Chaim Herzog lived a life that was a mirror of the drama of his country. Born in Belfast, he was the son of the Chief Rabbi of Ireland. As a boy, he moved to the land of Israel, where his father became Chief Rabbi. Chaim Herzog fought in the British Armed Forces in World War II and participated in the liberation of the death camps, an experience that influenced the rest of his life. During Israel's war of independence Herzog played a critical role in the battle for Jerusalem. He then became chief of military intelligence. During the Six Day War--almost 30 years ago--General Herzog's radio broadcasts helped to lift the morale of the people of Israel. In 1975, he was named Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations where he served with courage and defended his country with great eloquence. It was Herzog who stood up to defend Israel against the odious and false charge that Zionism is a form of racism. This is what Herzog said in his brilliant speech on that occasion: ``The vote of each delegation will record in history its country's stand on antisemitic racism and anti-Judaism. You, yourselves bear the responsibility for your stand before history. For as such, you will be viewed in history * * *. For us, the Jewish people, this is but a passing episode in a rich and event-filled history * * *. This resolution based on hatred, falsehood, and arrogance is devoid of any moral or legal value.'' Mr. Speaker, to this day, the fact that the United Nations General Assembly passed that resolution stands as a severe indictment of the United Nations itself. I am very proud to have been a delegate to the United Nations in 1991 when that immoral resolution was finally repealed and I am proud to have participated in the effort to repeal it. Let me conclude by noting that Chaim Herzog capped this event-filled and achievement-filled life with his election as President of Israel in 1983. He served for 10 years, set a new standard for dignity, honor, and decency and he also addressed a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress in 1987. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting and appropriate that this Congress express its sadness over the death of Chaim Herzog and convey its sympathy to the people of Israel and to the Herzog family, Mrs. Aura Herzog and her children Joel, Michael, Isaac, and Ronit and their respective families. I urge the unanimous adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to submit into the record the historic and moving speech given by Chaim Herzog at the United Nations to which I referred. And the obituary written about him in the New York Times. [From the New York Times, Apr. 18, 1997] Chaim Herzog, 78, Former President of Israel (By Eric Pace) Chaim Herzog, Israel's outspoken president from 1983 to 1993, died on Thursday at Tel Hashomer Hospital in Tel Aviv. He was 78, and lived in Herzliya Pituach, a suburb of Tel Aviv. The cause was heart failure after he contracted pneumonia on a recent visit to the United States, said Rachel Sofer, spokesman for the hospital. Herzog, a former general, was Israel's chief delegate to the United Nations from 1975 to 1978, a critical period, after serving as its director of military intelligence and, in 1967, as the first military governor of the occupied West Bank. Over the years, he was also a businessman, a lawyer, an author and a Labor Party member of the Israeli Parliament. In his two successive five-year terms as Israel's sixth chief of state, he strove to enlarge the president's role, which in Israel is largely ceremonial, by making public declarations on issues that leaders in government would not, or could not, address. Herzog argued in favor of greater rights for the Druse and Arab populations in Israel, declaring: ``I am the president of Arabs and Druse, as well as Jews.'' He worked actively to make political pariahs of Rabbi Meir Kahane and his fervently anti-Arab Kach Party. In addition, Herzog was an outspoken though unsuccessful lobbyist for comprehensive change in the Israeli voting system, which has spawned a jigsaw-puzzle of political parties and frequent parliamentary stalemates. By late 1987, as his first term was drawing to a close and while a national unity government was in power, he had probably become more influential and popular than any previous Israeli president. This was largely because the Labor and Likud party partners in that government were always bickering and frequently turned to him to arbitrate their disagreements. Moreover, groups of Israelis, like farmers and nurses, were always looking to him for aid that they could not get from the deadlocked Cabinet. Through the years, Herzog also made use of the Israeli president's power to pardon convicted criminals--and sometimes was criticized for doing so. In addition, he exercised the president's power to determine, after elections, which political party has the first opportunity to assemble a government. His urbane, outgoing nature and his earlier roles in his country's life fitted him to serve as a symbol of Israeli unity during his years as president. A descendant of rabbis, and a witness of Nazi concentration-camp horrors while he was an officer in the British army in World War II, he was steeped in the splendors and sorrows of Jewish history. He was also cosmopolitan, with the trace of a brogue from his native Belfast, Northern Ireland, and an education gained largely in Britain. As the chief delegate to the United Nations, Herzog led Israel's defense against Arab attempts to oust it. In 1975, when the General Assembly passed a resolution equating Zionism with racism, he went to the rostrum and defiantly tore a copy of the resolution in two. Seventeen years later, the Assembly repealed the resolution. Herzog was in the Israeli Defense Force at his country's birth in 1948, rose to the rank of major general and served twice as director of military intelligence, from 1948 to 1950 and from 1959 to 1962. Then he retired, only to return as the West Bank's military governor just after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, in which Israel, in an overwhelming victory, captured the West Bank and other territory from neighboring Arab countries. He also became noted, among Israelis, for radio commentaries he gave on military subjects before and during that six-day war. He used the radio to urge Israelis to stay in their air-raid shelters during alerts, and in one widely quoted broadcast he told his listeners that they were in much less danger where they were than was the attacking Egyptian air force. Herzog was first elected president by the Israeli Parliament, in 1983, in a rebuff to Prime Minister Menachem Begin's governing coalition of that day. By a vote of 61 to 57, with two blank ballots, Parliament chose him over the government's candidate, Justice Menachem Elon of the Supreme Court, to succeed President Yitzhak Navon of the Labor Party. In 1988, Herzog was elected by Parliament to a second term, the maximum permitted by Israeli law. In that balloting, he was unopposed, having the sponsorship of the Labor Party as well as wide backing from the right-wing Likud bloc, Labor's partner in the coalition government of the time. He was succeeded on May 13, 1993, by Ezer Weizman, a former defense minister and the nephew of Israel's first president, Chaim Weizman. Ezer Weizman had been elected by Parliament on March 24, 1993. As president, Herzog was sometimes acid in his criticisms of the Israeli national voting system. In an interview in 1992, he said: ``The system we have is a catastrophe. It allows for fragmentation and wheeling and dealing and gives inordinate power to small groupings.'' He was also something of a gadfly on a variety of other issues during his presidency. He was one of the few prominent figures in Israeli politics to comment regularly on Israel's high incidence of fatal vehicular accidents. By late 1992, drivers had killed 20 times more Israelis in the last five years than had the Palestinian uprising, almost 2,300 people. ``If the enemy had slain us to this extent, the country would quake and we would be shaking in our foundations,'' Herzog declared then in a message for the Jewish New Year. Earlier that year, at a time when Jewish settlers in the Israeli-occupied territories had taken various measures in retaliation for Arab acts of violence, he denounced vigilantism, saying in a radio broadcast: ``The phenomenon of taking the law into one's hands, of attacking innocents and interfering with the dedicated work of the security forces, endangers our foundations and future.'' Later in the year, with Israel not able to integrate all the new arrivals from the former Soviet republics fully into its economic life, Herzog proposed setting up soup kitchens for immigrants, and was criticized for doing so. He also spurred controversy sometimes by his use of the presidential power to pardon. In the mid-1980s, he was criticized for pardoning agents of the Shin Bet security service and its chief, who was charged with commanding that two Palestinian bus hijackers be summarily executed. In an interview in early 1993, Herzog noted that he had condemned ``what had happened.'' But he added that Israel was locked in combat with terrorists, and that to take the security-service personnel ``and put them on trial, and have each one bringing all sorts of evidence to prove that he wasn't the worst and so on, could have torn the Shin Bet to pieces just when we didn't need that.'' In addition, loud dissent arose after Herzog commuted the sentences of members of what was called a Jewish underground organization that had tried to kill local Palestinian functionaries. He later contended that reducing the penalties against some of the convicted members, and making them decry their deeds, had helped to shatter their group. As president, he traveled widely. He was among the world figures who, along with survivors of the Holocaust, gathered in Washington in April 1993 to dedicate the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. There he described his horror when he came upon Bergen-Belsen and other Nazi death camps as a British officer. ``No one who saw those terrifying scenes,'' he said, ``will ever forget.'' In 1992, to mark the 500th anniversary of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, Herzog went to Madrid and prayed together with Spain's king, Juan Carlos, in a gesture symbolizing reconciliation between their peoples. But Herzog did not become reconciled with the nations that had presented the 1975 U.N. resolution. In the 1993 interview, while still president, he said: ``Of the three countries that presented the Zionism as racism resolution, one has relations with us although no embassy--that's Benin. Two still don't have relations--one which has relations with nobody, namely Somalia, and one which is in great trouble, namely Cuba. They were the three sponsors of that resolution, these bastions of democracy and freedom.'' Herzog was born on Sept. 17, 1918, in Belfast, the son of Rabbi Isaac Halevy Herzog, who was the chief rabbi of Ireland and later became the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Israel, and the former Sarah Hillman. The Herzog family emigrated to Palestine in the mid-1930s, and the future president had three years of schooling at the Hebron Yeshiva there. The educational institutions where he later studied included Wesley College in Dublin, the Government of Palestine Law School in Jerusalem, and London and Cambridge universities. In the British army during World War II, he served with the Guards Armored Division and in intelligence on the Continent. He was discharged and then joined the Jewish underground in Palestine before Israel was founded. After his retirement from the military in 1962, he was for some years a high executive of a conglomerate of industrial enterprises that Sir Isaac Wolfson, a British businessman, owned in Israel. Over the years he wrote, was a co-author of, or edited more than half a dozen books, including ``The Arab-Israeli Wars'' (Random House and Vintage, 1982), ``Heroes of Israel'' (Little, Brown, 1989) and ``Living History: A Memoir'' (Pantheon, 1996). He is survived by his wife of 50 years, the former Aura Ambache; three sons Joel, Michael and Yitzhak, and a daughter, Ronit Bronsky. All his children live in Israel except for Joel, who lives in Geneva. Herzog is also survived by eight grandchildren. In his memoirs he wrote: ``I pray that my children and grandchildren will see a strong and vigorous Israel at peace with its neighbors and continuing to represent the traditions that have sustained our people throughout the ages.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing H.R. 1553, which amends the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992--Public Law 102-526--to provide 1 additional year for the Assassination Records Review Board to complete its work. This legislation 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 am pleased that the Honorable Henry Waxman, the ranking minority member on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and the Honorable Louis Stokes, who sponsored the 1992 Act and who chaired the House Select Committee on Assassinations that was established in 1976, are original cosponsors of H.R. 1553. 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 records have also been in the possession of certain State and local authorities as well as private citizens. When this legislation was considered, nearly 1 million pages of records compiled by official investigations of the assassination had not been made available to the public, some 30 years after the tragedy. 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. I believe that the release of this information is important to ensure accountability in the Government and to clearly demonstrate to Americans that the Government has nothing to hide. As a result of the Review Board's efforts, over 10,000 documents have been transferred to the national archives and Records Administration for inclusion in the JFK collection. At the end of 1996, that collection totaled approximately 3.1 million pages and was used extensively by researchers from all over the United States. The Review Board was in the news last month when it voted to make public the Abraham Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination. The President 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 even began its work. As a result, in 1994 Congress restarted the clock by extending the 1992 law's termination date for 1 year, until September 30, 1996. The Review Board subsequently exercised its authority to continue operating for 1 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. I have always believed very strongly that Congress should not indefinitely continue funding for Federal entities that were clearly intended to be temporary in nature. The Review Board has informed me that it is confident that it will be able to finish its work and complete its final report if Congress will extend its life for 1 additional year, until September 30, 1998.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is controversy over whether we go to 12 months or 18 months. When I was a boy, I was in a welfare agency home, a foster, and a setting of the type we are discussing today; and I can tell my colleagues I met a lot of young people that had been in that system for years and it had a very debilitating impact on their lives. I know some of them ended up in jail. Those are things that we need to take into consideration. The longer a child is in the foster care system, the more likely he or she is going to be a burden on society. Some of the statistics the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] did not mention in his statement, but he told me of a foster child who had been in over 100 foster homes. Now we can imagine what that does to the child's psyche. It has got to have a very devastating impact. Each year 15,000 children graduate from foster care with no permanent home. Fifteen thousand. What does that do to those kids? The ACLU reports, and I do not quote them very often, but the ACLU reports that among these graduates, 40 percent, 40 percent become dependent on AFDC, 46 percent dropped out of school, 51 percent were unemployed, and 60 percent of the women had out-of-wedlock births within 2 years from graduating from foster care. The Bureau of Justice reports that former foster children are nearly 30 times more likely to be incarcerated than individuals who never spent any time in foster care. So the problem is we want to get them out of there as quickly as possible. I agree that severing parental rights is a very important thing to consider. I mean, we do not want to do it lightly. But within a year, it seems to me that that is time enough to make a case as to whether or not a child should stay in that home. If the child is not going to be going back into their home, to keep them in foster care beyond that time period causes some serious problems for the child. So while I do not want to belabor the point, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] is obviously going to withdraw his amendment, I hope in conference my colleagues will give these arguments some serious consideration. I think we are all after the same thing. We want to do what is best for the child because it has an impact on society that is very, very great. It involves AFDC. It involves crime. It involves children born out of wedlock. So all of these things need to be taken into consideration and what is best for the child. If the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] wants me to yield, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, last year I was very pleased to have played a part in making sure that the adoption credit was passed. This credit helped make adoption more affordable for numerous parents who could not afford adoption costs. However, it is evident that costs are not the only problem of adopting. In fact, it is the very system that was created to help children either be reunited with their families or be adopted that has turned out to be the problem. In the last decade child welfare has grown into an enormous bureaucratic system that is biased toward preserving the family at any cost. Consequently, foster care has become a way of life for thousands of children while agencies continue to try and, quote, fix the problem. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend my dear colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] for all their hard work on the Adoption Promotion Act of 1997. For years, foster care has been a black hole for thousands of America's children. The current system has failed to help the very children it was intended to help. Today it is estimated that over 500,000 children are in foster care while 50 to 80,000 are legally free to be adopted. The average child is in foster care for 3 years, while 1 in 10 children remain in State care for longer than 7\1/2\ years. The time is right to make some fundamental changes to the child welfare system because too many children are simply wasting away. This is a responsible bill that seeks to speed up the adoption process, in particular for those children that have been abused or neglected. This bill represents an important philosophical shift from the Federal policy that makes every effort to reunite children with their biological families to one that defines when reasonable efforts shall not be made and determines when those children shall be placed in permanent, loving, adoptive homes. I strongly believe that this legislation moves in the right direction by defining reasonable efforts, placing timelines on permanency decisions and filing for parental termination and providing incentives to States to hasten adoption. However, I believe that there are ways that we can strengthen and improve the bill so that it thinks of what is best for the children and for their well-being. Mr. Chairman, we finally have the opportunity to help thousands of children, and we should ensure it is an effective bill. Originally the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] and myself were hoping to introduce two separate amendments; however, instead Mr. Tiahrt and I will be speaking about one separate amendment. Before that amendment is debated, I would like to discuss one of the amendments we are not dropping that I believe deserves thorough discussion and consideration in the future. This amendment, once it is determined that a child shall not be returned to his home and parental rights are to be terminated, the State shall place the child with a family who is qualified and willing to adopt. If the State has failed to find an adoptive home within 90 days, then the State must contract out with a private agency to find a family within 90 days. After that child is with the preadoptive family for 4 months, the family would have the right to petition for an expedited hearing to terminate parental rights and adopt the child. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this arrangement would greatly expedite the movement of children that are free to be adopted into permanent homes. Currently States often take months to find parents in spite of thousands of parents waiting to adopt. Groups such as Adopt a Special Kid, the Dave Thomas Foundation, Institute for Justice, Adopt a Network, and Children with AIDS say they have hundreds of parents waiting to adopt a child. Private agencies have proven to do a much better job because they have the experience and are not bogged down by numerous other demands and the financial disincentives to adopt a child and they have one mission, to get the child into a loving adoptive home. For example, Michigan has a successful program with the private sector, is involved in placement of the child into a permanent home, and adoptions in the State have doubled, and adoptions of African-American children are up 121 percent. Kansas, which has contracted out most of its services to private agencies, has all children, regardless of age, in permanent placement at the end of 1 year. According to Patrick Fagan of the Heritage Foundation, private adoption services are more efficient and more effective than State agencies where adoption is concerned, as illustrated by the track record of Detroit's home for African-American children. Mr. Chairman, there is a desperate need to get kids into permanent and loving homes. Children are waiting too long for a permanent home. According to a report by Dr. Carol Beevan, children wait an average of 2\1/2\ years for courts to terminate parental rights. Each month, each day that a child spends in care, is extremely detrimental to his or her mental and physical development and also has great cost to our society in the forms of welfare numbers, out-of-wedlock children, and problems with the criminal justice system. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this proposal with my colleagues. While it will not be voted on by the House today, I would hope that we can work with the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp], the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] and other interested parties to see if it can be discussed at the conference or in future hearings.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to discuss with my colleagues serious issues which have come up in the investigation that Congress has launched into illegal fund-raising activities. In the past few days, the White House has blurred the issues by claiming to have fully complied with our request for relevant documents. This is just not true, Mr. Speaker. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has not received all subpoenaed records, and the White House counsel has indicated that the President will be asserting executive privilege over an unspecified amount of documents. The American people have a right to know. After weeks of seemingly good-faith negotiations with the White House lawyers in which the committee prioritized its request, the White House refuses to provide all documents to the committee. For weeks the White House counsel said documents would be forthcoming once a document protocol was adopted, yet the committee's April 10 adoption of a document protocol was met with continued White House resistance. The White House proposed an alternative document protocol essentially putting control of subpoenaed documents into the hands of the White House that is being investigated. We are today involved in investigating allegations of illegalities of a very serious nature which must be addressed without delay: Did the Clinton administration sell foreign influence overseas in return for campaign contributions? The American people have a right to know. Was America's national security put in jeopardy by foreign money that may have found its way into the Democratic National Committee's campaign coffers? The American people have a right to know. Did foreign governments funnel foreign funds into the 1996 campaign to influence the outcome? The American people have a right to know. How did a cast of characters, such as John Huang, Charlie Trie, Chinese arms dealer Wang Jun, purported Russian mob figure Grigory Loutchansky, and convicted drug dealer Jorge Cabrera gain access to the highest levels of our Government? The American people have a right to know. Were there unlawful disclosures of classified information to unauthorized Democratic National Committee employees as the CIA inspector general is now investigating? The American people have a right to know. I was optimistic after my first meeting with White House counsel Charles Ruff in February that the White House's actions during the last Congress of delaying and withholding documents in the Whitewater, FBI files, and the Travelgate investigations would not be repeated. Yet, now, 6 months into this investigation and a month after the deadline for compliance with the committee's March 4 subpoena, the President is repeating the same dilatory tactics of the past. Many of the subpoenaed documents which the White House has failed to produce pertain to close friends that the President has appointed to high Government positions, such as Webster Hubbell, John Huang, and Mark Middleton. These people have taken the fifth amendment to our committee. Other documents pertain to individuals who have fled the country, such as former Little Rock restaurant owner, Charlie Trie, another Presidential appointee. Last week we sent the White House two narrowly targeted subpoenas for documents dealing only with John Huang and the Riady family, nothing else. These documents were first requested by the committee over 6 months ago. Mr. Huang is being investigated for alleged illegal activities involving foreign governments and interests while a Federal employee at the Department of Commerce and his DNC fund-raising practices. Of the $3.4 million Huang raised for the DNC campaign during the last election, the DNC has pledged to return nearly half of that. These two subpoenas were a real test case of whether the White House was going to cooperate with Congress or not. The deadline was yesterday, and the White House has not produced the documents. My staff has spent hours working with the White House to respond to its concerns. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record the chronology of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee's efforts to get the White House to turn over the documents regarding John Huang, which has been going on since last October. My predecessor, Chairman Clinger, issued the first request for Mr. Huang's documents on October 3, 1996. Six months, numerous letter requests, and three subpoenas later, the committee has yet to receive all the documents from the White House pertaining to John Huang. Now we still need to obtain more documents that are outstanding and past due that are related to Charlie Trie, Webster Hubbell, and others. These documents are also being withheld and are important records we will be pursuing in the coming days. Mr. Speaker, the major purpose of a congressional investigation is to illuminate the facts and not hide them. Congressional investigations are by their nature far different from a judicial inquiry where a grand jury conducts all matters secretly. Public disclosure of the facts is the essence and in large part the purpose of congressional oversight. The American people have a right to know the facts in these matters. The President committed to provide all documents. I hope that all Members, both Democrat and Republican, will join me in asking the President to keep his word and comply with our lawful subpoenas and produce all documents to our committee. The document referred to is as follows: Government Reform and Oversight Chronology of White House Document/ Subpoena Requests 1996-97 October 31, 1996--Then Chairman Clinger requested ``all records regarding Mr. Huang's activities'' including Huang's involvement in trade or foreign policy matters, all of Huang's White House meetings and explanation for Huang's fund-raising activities. November 13, 1996--Chairman Clinger renewed his request for documents pertaining to John Huang. November 1996-January 1997--Former White House Counsel Jack Quinn sent out memos to collect documents pertaining to John Huang, Charlie Trie and other key players connected with the illegal fund-raising allegations. White House made limited production of documents pertaining to these individuals. January 15, 1997--Chairman Burton did a letter request to the White House for records pertaining to John Huang, Charlie Trie, Pauline Kanchanalak, and others. The due date for this request was January 30, 1997. February 6, 1997--Chuck Ruff met with Chairman Burton and informed him that the President was going to be fully cooperative in providing documents and the President wouldn't claim executive privilege. February-March 1997--Limited document productions are made and much of information provided was previously provided or already made public. Substantive documents were produced in connection with certain Senate nominations. March 4, 1997--Chairman Burton issued a subpoena to the White House due on March 24, 1997 for documents pertaining to John Huang, the Riadys, Charlie Trie, Webster Hubbell and others. March 19, 1997--White House Special Counsel Lanny Breuer wrote to the Committee Chief Counsel: ``I was heartened when you expressed an understanding that the White House anticipated making its production after the Committee had adopted governing protocols.'' March 28, 1997--White House Special Counsel Breuer again wrote: ``. . .the White House anticipated making its production after the Committee had adopted governing protocols.'' April 10, 1997--Committee adopts a document protocol for the handling and storage of documents. April 15, 1997--White House Counsel's office informed Committee that documents would not be provided despite the adoption of the document protocol. Documents pertaining to categories 1-8 of the subpoena were gathered at this point but the White House does not want to turn them over and refused to provide a privilege log outlining the documents that will be withheld. (Only limited production of non- sensitive documents was made). April 16, 1997--White House Counsel attorneys and Committee attorneys met to discuss obtaining the outstanding documents. The White House objected to turning over ``sensitive documents'' and refused to commit to providing a privilege log. April 18, 1997--After extensive discussions with the White House and the minority staff, the Committee sent a detailed letter to the White House prioritizing the March 4, 1997 subpoena. The Committee was told at this time that items 1-8 of the subpoena were gathered. Other priority items were identified pertaining to Webster Hubbell and Mark Middleton and were requested by April 28, 1997. April 23, 1997--White House Counsel met with Chairman Burton to discuss documents that the White House had not produced. Charles Ruff committed to providing a privilege log for documents the President was going to withhold. Ruff was served at that meeting with two subpoenas specifically requesting all documents pertaining to John Huang and James Riady. (These subpoenas were a subset of previously subpoenaed records and were due to the Committee at noon on April 28, 1997.) April 28, 1997--White House failed to provide documents pertaining to John Huang, the Riadys or Webster Hubbell and did not provide a privilege log detailing withheld documents, nor a letter from the President asserting privilege.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 240, the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1997. As chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, I am pleased that one of the committee's first bills on the floor in the 105th Congress is one which will help our Nation's veterans. Chairman John Mica is to be commended for his hard work on this issue and for introducing this bipartisan measure and bringing it to the floor. Last year the House passed similar legislation not once, but twice. Unfortunately, the other body failed to act on this legislation. I was an original cosponsor of H.R. 3586, which Congressman Mica introduced last year, and as chairman of the full committee I have worked very hard for passage of H.R. 240 this year. Mr. Speaker, Congress intended for veterans' preference rules to help veterans compete for jobs in the Federal Government and to protect veterans' rights during reductions-in-force, or RIF's. Unfortunately, the Civil Service Subcommittee has found that the benefits of the original veterans' preference laws have been eroded. Agencies often ignore or find ways to circumvent veterans' preference directives. One way that agencies do this to conduct special RIF's that are narrowly targeted to specific individuals, leaving those individuals with no opportunity to benefit from the veterans' preference or other rules that would enable them to compete to keep their jobs. This is not right. I served on the Veterans' Affairs Committee before joining the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Many of our Nation's veterans have made tremendous sacrifices for the peace and freedom that all Americans enjoy today. I think it is only fair that Congress take steps to help them compete for Federal jobs for which they are qualified and to protect their rights during RIF's. All veterans have earned those rights. Clearly, veterans' preference laws need to be strengthened in order for them to remain effective. H.R. 240 would do this by establishing an effective, straightforward redress system for veterans. Federal officials who knowingly violate veterans' rights could be brought before the Merit Systems Protection Board and fined $1,000, suspended, or fired. Federal agencies would be prevented from conducting designer RIFs which unfairly remove veterans' rights. Agencies will be required to establish priority placement programs for veterans who are affected by RIF's, and agencies must give veterans a preference when they rehire employees. Anyone who is eligible for veterans' preference or has served in the Armed Forces honorably for 3 years would be eligible to compete for Federal jobs which agencies currently restrict to their own work forces or to current Federal employees. The bill specifies that members of our Armed Forces who are serving in Bosnia, Croatia, and Macedonia also will qualify for veterans' preference. The honorable treatment of our veterans through such legislation is the least we can do to show our appreciation for the tremendous sacrifices so many veterans have made to protect the liberties of this great democracy for all American citizens. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 240.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. As my colleagues know, the founder of our party, Abraham Lincoln, said one time, I hope I am quoting him correctly; he said, ``If I do the wrong thing, a thousand angels screaming from the rooftops won't make it right, but if I do the right thing, history will prove I did the right thing.'' Mr. Speaker, I hope that is what happens with my committee and my conducting of my committee's activities over the next few months. I have been accused of some things that I think unfairly, but I expected that to happen because when we start investigating the executive branch of government that involves the President, we got to expect that they are going to be firing back, and I fully anticipated that. I did not think it would happen this soon, but nevertheless I expected it. But let me just say to my colleagues I still commit to my Democrat friends that we are going to try to run this committee in as fair and as bipartisan a way as possible. I told the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] on three different occasions when we had meetings that we would give him notice before we sent out correspondence, he would have 24 hours notice before we sent out subpoenas, we would not release documents without his approval or give him 24 hours notice unless it was an emergency and we had to do it, and so far we have released no documents. Today many people are talking about us releasing documents. We have released no documents. The White House has been doing that, and if Members do not believe me, ask the media. We are keeping our word, and our scope, the scope of our investigation, I want it to be relatively narrow so we can get this thing over with in a quick and a short period of time. I want to investigate alleged illegal activities in the executive branch, illegal activities. Were we selling foreign influence overseas for campaign contributions? This is something that is very important to the American people. Was our national security jeopardized because we were selling our national security for contributions? Were we selling business deals to foreigners for campaign contributions that might hurt the economy of the United States? These are things that we need to look into that are alleged illegal activities. Now I did not say that we would not look into the illegal activities of Congressmen or Senators, or the DNC, the RNC, or the DCCC or NRCC. What I did say was, if we found illegal activities or what appeared to be illegal, we would turn them over to the committee of jurisdiction in the Congress. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct investigates Congressmen. We knew that when Speaker Gingrich and Speaker Wright were investigated; that is where we went when there was an alleged ethical or illegal violation. That is what I intend to do; not sweep it under the rug if it is a Republican, but turn it over to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct with the information we have. The House administration or the Committee on House Oversight, if we find something going wrong with the RNC, or the DNC, we will give that illegal information, or that information looks like it is illegal, to that committee for proper work. Let me just wrap up because we are running out of time. I want to pledge to Members that this will be a fair investigation. I will be as fair to the minority as I am the majority. But I want to tell my colleagues this: As long as I can stand on my two legs, I am going to do my dead level best to get to the bottom of these scandals; make no mistake about it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that there is enough blame to go around. Obviously we do have a consumption problem here in the United States, but a major part of the responsibility for the drug problem in America rests in Mexico, and for people to deny that and say that it is all our problem is in my opinion a ludicrous argument. Let me just give you some facts: Seven hours after the President's certification of Mexico was made public Mexico's attorney general issued a statement that its own senior officials had allowed Humberto Garcia Abrego, a reputed money launderer and brother of convicted drug kingpin Juan Garcia Abrego, to walk free from police custody. They waited until the certification took place, and then they released this known drug dealer. Thomas Constantine, the administrator of the U.S. DEA said on February 25, ``Historically, corruption has been a central problem in DEA's relationship with counterparts. In short, there is not,'' now get this, ``In short, there is not one single law enforcement institution in Mexico with whom DEA has an entirely trusting relationship,'' not one in all of Mexico. According to the DEA, 70 percent of the cocaine entering the United States comes across the Mexican-American border, and that is up from 50 percent just about 3 or 4 years ago, a huge increase. Despite an apparent increased level of production in transit, Mexico's cocaine seizures in 1996 are less than half of what they were 5 years ago. There has been an increase, but the seizures are down by more than 50 percent, 23.8 metric tons in 1996 compared to 50.3 metric tons in 1991. The bottom line is they are not cooperating. Should we reward that kind of activity? It makes no sense to me. The Mexican Government takes credit for firing 1,200 officials for corruption, but not one of those people has been prosecuted, not 1 out of 1,200. U.S. extradition documents cite evidence in a single case that the attorney general and 90 percent, get that, 90 percent of the police, prosecutors and judges in Tijuana and the State of Baja California are on the payroll of a major drug cartel, 90 percent of them. That is amazing. Although the United States Department of Justice has submitted provisional warrants for the arrest of Mexican drug kingpins, only one, Juan Garcia Abrego, a dual national, has been sent to the United States to face justice. And finally, drug-related arrests in Mexico are down dramatically, dramatically down in the last 4 years; 11,283 in 1996 compared to almost 28,000 just a few years ago. Mr. Speaker, we need to send the strongest possible message to Mexico right now. Let them start helping us. America is fighting a losing battle against drugs, and we need their help.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, Drew Peterson graduated from high school in South Haven, MI, in 1967, and enlisted in the U.S. Army. He served two voluntary tours of duty in Vietnam with the 25th Infantry Division, where he was wounded during a Communist rocket and ground attack and later received the Bronze Star Medal. Drew then served with the Indiana National Guard where he rose to the commissioned officer rank of captain, having served in the intelligence and the security- counterterrorism training field. After receiving an honorable discharge from the regular Army in 1970, Drew attended college and continued his public service career by becoming a Michigan certified deputy sheriff and later served with the Michigan State Police. In 1983, Drew accepted a position with the Department of Defense in Indianapolis as a security-specialist at Fort Benjamin Harrison. During this time, he represented DOD as a member of the Law Enforcement Committee on Crime Prevention for the 1987 Pan American Games held in Indianapolis. In 1987, Drew transferred to GSA's U.S. Federal Protective Service as a Federal law enforcement agent specializing in security. During his tenure with FPS, Drew served as the acting district director in charge of the security and law enforcement staff and functions in four States. With FPS, Drew also served as a criminal investigator and security specialist, where among his accomplishments was to conduct security surveys for the Office of the Vice President of the United States and Congressmen, plus counterterrorism surveys of Federal courthouses and the Army Finance and Accounting Center in Indianapolis. In 1995, Drew was involved with the President's requested Department of Justice review of the security for major Federal facilities and courthouses following the terrorist bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. His counterterrorism recommendations to enhance security were adopted by Government agencies. During Drew's tenure with the Federal Government, in addition to completing training in management and law enforcement, he completed his bachelor of science degree in criminal justice and a master of arts degree in executive development for public service from Ball State University. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Drew Peterson for his many accomplishments and his devotion and service to our country.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the v-chip provision in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which became law last year, was intended to help parents take control of what comes into their homes and their children's minds via the television set by allowing them to block out programs that they believe contain too much violence, sex, or adult language. Under the 1996 act, the broadcast industry was encouraged to establish rules for rating violence, sex, and other indecent material so that parents would be able to make informed decisions on what programs their children could or could not watch. However, rather than devising a system that truly informs parents about the content of the television programs, the entertainment industry has proposed an age-based rating system. This type of rating system fails our children because it does not provide parents with comprehensive information to make informed choices about what their children watch. This age-based system is too broad and vague for parents. Parents have said over and over that they want a television rating system to tell them what's in a program, not who should view it. According to a nationwide survey conducted by the National Parent and Teachers Association, 80 percent of parents stated that they want separate ratings for sex, violence, and language content to help them make informed and educated evaluations of television shows. The National PTA, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Children's Defense Fund, the Family Research Council, and numerous other organizations have all criticized the age- based ratings system. Instead they advocated ratings based on program content to help parents with the ability to block out objectionable, content-specific programming. Today, I am joining my colleague from Massachusetts, Congressman Edward J. Markey, and 11 other cosponsors, to introduce legislation that seeks to ensure that parents will be able to keep their children from watching violent programs. I would like to commend my colleague from Massachusetts for all the hard work he has done over the past few years to provide parents with a tool to make informed choices on what their children watch on television. This legislation encourages the broadcast industry to adopt a content-specific ratings system that would allow parents to block out violent programming. If the industry prefers, it can choose not to label those shows that are violent and can keep the age-based system. However, the broadcaster would not be allowed to televise programs that contain violent content during the hours of the day when children are most likely to comprise a substantial portion of the audience. Broadcasters have a choice--either adopt a content-specific programming system that allows parents to block out violent programs, or only air those shows during the times when the majority of children aren't watching television. Parents want a content-based rating system to help them protect their children from being exposed to inordinate amounts of violence, sex, and vulgar language on television. Hopefully, this bill will encourage the entertainment industry to do what is right for our Nation's children, and ultimately our Nation's future.

Mr. BURTON

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the 105th Congress the newly released book entitled, ``The Secret Life of the Sandinistas.'' This book written by Roberto Arguello, outlines the last decade of Sandinista activity. Mr. Arguello writes material published in as many as 140 newspapers in Latin America and is a member of the U.S. Senate's Hispanic task force. This latest work is a capstone to his efforts for advocating free enterprise and fighting for the elimination of totalitarian oppression. Mr. Arguello's, ``The Secret Life of the Sandinistas,'' will be available in the near future through the Library of Congress. I would encourage all of my colleagues who have either a general interest in international affairs or a specific interest in Nicaragua to review this excellent book.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the requirement of clause 2(a) or rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I submit herewith the rules of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for the 105th Congress and ask that they be printed in the Record at this point. These rules were adopted by the committee on February 12, 1997. I. Rules of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight rule 1. application of rules Except where the terms ``full committee'' and ``subcommittee'' are specifically referred to, the following rules shall apply to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and its subcommittees as well as to the respective chairmen. [See House Rule XI, 1.] rule 2. meetings The regular meetings of the full Committee shall be held on the second Tuesday of each month at 10:00 a.m., when the House is in session. The chairman is authorized to dispense with a regular meeting or to change the date thereof, and to call and convene additional meetings, when circumstances warrant. A special meeting of the committee may be requested by members of the committee following the provisions of House Rule XI, 2(c)2. Subcommittees shall meet at the call of the subcommittee chairmen. Every member of the committee or the appropriate subcommittee, unless prevented by unusual circumstances, shall be provided with a memorandum at least three calendar days before each meeting or hearing explaining (1) the purpose of the meeting or hearing; and (2) the names, titles, background and reasons for appearance of any witnesses. The ranking minority member shall be responsible for providing the same information on witnesses whom the minority may request. [See House Rule XI, 2(b).] rule 3. quorums A majority of the members of the committee shall form a quorum, except that two members shall constitute a quorum for taking testimony and receiving evidence, and one-third of the members shall form a quorum for taking any action other than the reporting of a measure or recommendation. If the chairman is not present at any meeting of the committee or subcommittee, the ranking member of the majority party on the committee or subcommittee who is present shall preside at that meeting. [See House Rule XI, 2(h).] rule 4. committee reports Bills and resolutions approved by the committee shall be reported by the chairman following House Rule XI, 2(l). Every investigative report shall be approved by a majority vote of the committee at a meeting at which a quorum is present. Supplemental, minority, or additional views may be filed following House Rule XI, 2(l)(5). The time allowed for filing such views shall be three calendar days, beginning on the day of notice but excluding Saturday, Sundays, and legal holidays (unless the House is in session on such a day), unless the committee agrees to a different time, but agreement on a shorter time shall require the concurrence of each member seeking to file such views. A proposed report shall not be considered in subcommittee or full committee unless the proposed report has been available to the members of such subcommittee or full committee for at least three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) before consideration of such proposed report in subcommittee or full committee. An investigative report or oversight report will be considered as read if available, to the members, at least 24 hours before consideration, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays unless the House is in session on such days. If hearings have been held on the matter reported upon, every reasonable effort shall be made to have such hearings available to the members of the subcommittee or full committee before the consideration of the proposed report in such subcommittee or full committee. An investigative or oversight report may be filed after sine die adjournment of the last regular session of the Congress, provided that if a member gives timely notice of intention to file supplemental, minority or additional views, that member shall be entitled to not less than seven calendar days in which to submit such views for inclusion with the report. Only those reports approved by a majority vote of the committee may be ordered printed, unless otherwise required by the Rules of the House of Representatives. rule 5. proxy votes In accordance with the Rules of the House of Representatives, members may not vote by proxy on any measure or matter before the committee or any subcommittee. [See House Rule XI, 2(f).] rule 6. roll calls A roll call of the members may be had upon the request of any member upon approval of a one-fifth vote. [See House Rule XI, 2(e).] rule 7. record of committee actions The committee staff shall maintain in the committee offices a complete record of committee actions from the current Congress including a record of the rollcall votes taken at committee business meetings. The original records, or true copies thereof, as appropriate, shall be available for public inspection whenever the committee offices are open for public business. The staff shall assure that such original records are preserved with no unauthorized alteration, additions, or defacement. [See House Rule XI, 2(e).] rule 8. subcommittees; referrals There shall be seven subcommittees with appropriate party ratios that shall have fixed jurisdictions. Bills, resolutions, and other matters shall be referred by the chairman to subcommittees within two weeks for consideration or investigation in accordance with their fixed jurisdictions. Where the subject matter of the referral involves the jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee or does not fall within any previously assigned jurisdiction, the chairman shall refer the matter as he may deem advisable. Bills, resolutions, and other matters referred to subcommittees may be reassigned by the chairman when, in his judgement, the subcommittee is not able to complete its work or cannot reach agreement therein. In a subcommittee having an even number of members, if there is a tie vote with all members voting on any measure, the measure shall be placed on the agenda for full committee consideration as if it had been ordered reported by the subcommittee without recommendation. This provision shall not preclude further action on the measure by the subcommittee. [See House Rule XI, 1(a)(2).] rule 9. ex officio members The chairman and the ranking minority member of the committee shall be ex officio members of all subcommittees. They are authorized to vote on subcommittee matters; but, unless they are regular members of the subcommittee, they shall not be counted in determining a subcommittee quorum other than a quorum for taking testimony. rule 10. staff Except as otherwise provided by House Rule XI, 5 and 6, the chairman of the full committee shall have the authority to hire and discharge employees of the professional and clerical staff of the full committee and of subcommittees. rule 11. staff direction Except as otherwise provided by House Rule XI, 5 and 6, the staff of the committee shall be subject to the direction of the chairman of the full committee and shall perform such duties as he may assign. rule 12: hearing dates and witnesses The chairman of the full committee will announce the date, place, and subject matter of all hearings at least one week before the commencement of any hearings, unless he determines, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, or the committee determines by a vote, that there is good cause to begin such hearings sooner. So that the chairman of the full committee may coordinate the committee facilities and hearings plans, each subcommittee chairman shall notify him of any hearing plans at least two weeks before the date of commencement of hearings, including the date, place, subject matter, and the names of witnesses, willing and unwilling, who would be called to testify, including, to the extent he is advised thereof, witnesses whom the minority members may request. The minority members shall supply the names of witnesses they intend to call to the chairman of the full committee or subcommittee at the earliest possible date. Witnesses appearing before the committee shall so far as practicable, submit written statements at least 24 hours before their appearance and, when appearing in a non-governmental capacity, provide a curriculum vitae and a listing of any Federal Government grants and contracts received in the previous fiscal year. [See House Rules XI, 2(g)(3), (g)(4), (j), and (k).] rule 13. open meetings Meetings for the transaction of business and hearings of the committee shall be open to the public or closed in accordance with Rule XI of the House of Representatives. [See House Rules XI, 2 (g) and (k).] rule 14: five-minute rule (1) A committee member may question a witness only when recognized by the chairman for that purpose. In accordance with House Rule XI, 2(j)(2), each committee member may request up to five minutes to question a witness until each member who so desires has had such opportunity. Until all such requests have been satisfied, the chairman shall, so far as practicable, recognize alternately based on seniority of those majority and minority members present at the time the hearing was called to order and others based on their arrival at the hearing. After that, additional time may be extended at the direction of the chairman. (2) The chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, or the committee by motion, may permit an equal number of majority and minority members to question a witness for a specified, total period that is equal for each side and not longer than thirty minutes for each side. (3) The chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, or the committee by motion, may permit committee staff of the majority and minority to question a witness for a specified, total period that is equal for each side and not longer than thirty minutes for each side. (4) Nothing in paragraph (2) or (3) affects the rights of a Member (other than a Member designated under paragraph (2)) to question a witness for 5 minutes in accordance with paragraph (1) after the questioning permitted under paragraph (2) or (3). In any extended questioning permitted under paragraph (2) or (3), the Chairman shall determine how to allocate the time permitted for extended questioning by majority members or majority committee staff and the ranking minority member shall determine how to allocate the time permitted for extended questioning by minority members or minority committee staff. The Chairman or the ranking minority member, as applicable, may allocate the time for any extended questioning permitted to staff under paragraph (3) to members. rule 15. investigative hearings; procedure Investigative hearings shall be conducted according to the procedures in House Rule XI, 2(k). All questions put to witnesses before the committee shall be relevant to the subject matter before the committee for consideration, and the chairman shall rule on the relevance of any questions put to the witnesses. rule 16. stenographic record A stenographic record of all testimony shall be kept of public hearings and shall be made available on such conditions as the chairman may prescribe. rule 17. tv, radio, and photographs An open meeting or hearing of the committee or a subcommittee may be covered, in whole or in part, by television broadcast, radio broadcast, and still photography, or by any such methods of coverage, unless closed subject to the provisions of House Rule XI, 3. rule 18: additional duties of chairman The chairman of the full committee shall: (a) Make available to other committees the findings and recommendations resulting from the investigations of the committee or its subcommittees as required by House Rule X, 4(c)(2); (b) Direct such review and studies on the impact or probable impact of tax policies affecting subjects within the committee's jurisdiction as required by House Rule X, 2(c); (c) Submit to the Committee on the Budget views and estimates required by House Rule X, 4(g), and to file reports with the House as required by the Congressional Budget Act; (d) Authorize and issue subpoenas as provided in House Rule XI, clause 2(m), in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities within the jurisdiction of the committee; (e) Prepare, after consultation with subcommittee chairmen and the minority, a budget for the committee which shall include an adequate budget for the subcommittees to discharge their responsibilities; (f) Make any necessary technical and conforming changes to legislation reported by the committee upon unanimous consent; and (g) Will designate a Vice Chairman from the majority party. rule 19: commemorative stamps The committee has adopted the policy that the determination of the subject matter of commemorative stamps properly is for consideration by the Postmaster General and that the committee will not give consideration to legislative proposals for the issuance of commemorative stamps. It is suggested that recommendations for the issuance of commemorative stamps be submitted to the Postmaster General.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. I also want to thank my colleagues from Texas, Henry Bonilla and Solomon Ortiz, for sponsoring this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad thing to do right off the bat, in a new session of the Congress, to have to eulogize and remember a fellow like Frank Tejeda. He did a great service to this country. He was an outstanding Congressman. One of the things that strikes me, Mr. Speaker, is that at times like this, even though this Congress is vilified from time to time, people can see that there is a closeness between both Democrats and Republicans. We have our differences on philosophical issues and so forth, but we all respect and honor one another, and at times like this, it shows the American people that we are one body and we are concerned about our fellow men and our fellow legislators. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Tejeda, did great things for this country in Vietnam. He served this country well. He accomplished great things. A high school dropout that went to Vietnam after getting his education, part of it, he got the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star serving his country. I do not think this has been mentioned yet, but at Officer Candidate School he had the highest academic average that any marine has ever had in the history of the Marine Corps. That is extraordinary. It shows that people who are ruled out early on in their life can achieve great things. He is an example for every young person in this country who has had academic problems to follow. So even in his death we can remember him, and people across this country should remember him, for achievements that extend beyond the time when he was looked upon as a failure in life. He became a very fine member of the service. He became a very fine member of the Congress. He never forgot his fellow servicemen, his fellow enlisted men that served in the conflict in Vietnam and in the other wars. He served his constituency well, and he is one that we will remember with honor and dignity. I would just like to say to his family how sorry we are that he is lost to us and my colleagues, and to tell them that both Republicans and Democrats will miss him.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, Andy Jacobs is one of those guys who carries the Golden Rule in his heart. I feel very strongly about the caliber of this man, and I think the people really ought to know what he's like. Andy Jacobs sits on the other side of the aisle from me, and although we are political opponents, so to speak, I believe him to be one of the most outstanding Congressmen in the House of Representatives. Andy has worked these many years in the House to protect the Social Security System and was the chief sponsor of the Social Security Administration to become an independent agency, as well as several other Social Security provisions which have become law. Andy has long been a leading proponent of pre-school programs for educationally-disadvantaged children. He authored a provision which was enacted in 1994 which created demonstration projects designed to enhance the cognitive skills and linguistic ability of children under the age of 5 years. Andy also was responsible for the law which made Father's Day a national holiday. He authored a law which ended age-old immunity of Federal employees from court process to collect just debts owed by them. And, there are so many more accomplishments by this distinguished gentlemen during his 30 years in the House of Representatives. Indianapolis Republican mayors have praised Andy for protecting Indianapolis' interests in Washington during his many years in Congress. We know Andy's wife, Kim, and their two sons are very happy he is coming home to stay, but their gain is our loss. Regardless of who replaces Andy, he will be missed by us on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, one of my very good friends in Congress is John Myers. John has represented Indiana's 7th District which is adjacent to mine. John is retiring at the end of this Congress, and he is really going to be missed by everyone who appreciates a warm smile and cheery greeting. Throughout John's career in the House of Representatives he has the reputation of being a staunch fiscal conservative. He consistently voted against higher spending and never voted for a tax increase. John has been an institution on the Appropriations Committee. He has served as chairman of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee during the 104th Congress, after being ranking Republican on the full committee for several years. He also has served as ranking Republican on the Ethics Committee and on the old Post Office and Civil Service Committee. John's intelligence, fairness, and integrity are unquestionable. John is known to be an independent thinker and is one of those congressmen who really thought hard about an issue before deciding how he should vote. His record of achievement has earned him the respect of everyone on both sides of the aisle. John has served the 7th District and the State of Indiana in an exemplary manner these past 30 years. I'm really going to miss him. This place won't be the same without him. I wish John and Carol a very long and happy retirement.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the September 16 issue of the New York Times reported that, thanks to a personal crusade by a magistrate named Shiv Narain Dhingra, some of the people responsible for the 1984 Delhi massacre of Sikhs are being punished. Over 20,000 Sikhs died in those massacres following the assassination of Indira Ghandi. All the while, state radio and television called for more bloodshed and the Home Minister locked Sikh policemen in their barracks. The New York Times called this ``one of the darkest chapters in the country's half-century of independence.'' According to the Times, ``despite evidence implicating politicians, police officers, and officials in the anti-Sikh rioting, not a single person had been convicted for the killings that followed the assassination,'' until this year. This year, a butcher who was involved in at least 150 of those murders, Kishori Lal, was sentence to death by Judge Dhingra. This crusading magistrate has also sentenced 89 people involved in the massacres to 5 years of ``rigorous imprisonment,'' the harshest punishment in the Indian prison system. These moves constitute a first step toward justice, but they are not nearly enough. Gurcharan Singh Babbar, a Sikh activist whose campaign on behalf of the victims of this government-inspired massacre caused him to be labeled a ``terrorist'' by the regime, reports that he has affidavits from the families of at least 5,000 victims. Clearly, the sentences imposed by Mr. Dhingra are just the tip of the iceburg. A Sikh woman named Satnami Bai, finally succeeded in getting a criminal indictment against former government minister H.K.L. Bhagat, who was involved in the murder of her husband, Mohan. It seems that Mohan Bai was pulled from his home, beaten with iron bars, and burned to death by a government-inspired mob. Unfortunately, Mohan Bai is just one of many. Despite the indictment against Mr. Bhagat, he has been allowed to stay in a government bungalow with the protection of the elite and brutal Black Cats security forces. After he was thrown out under pressure this past spring, the Government wrote off thousands of dollars in back rent that Mr. Bhagat owed. The judge said the Government's belated effort to investigate the massacre is clearly a farce designed to cover up its own responsibility. As Mr. Dhingra points out, the government felt that ``the massacre was necessary to teach (the Sikhs) a lesson.'' This is further proof that the rights of Sikhs and other minorities have never been respected in ``the world's largest democracy.'' That is why we must raise our voices to force the Indian government to stop the atrocities in Punjab and Kashmir, and punish the criminals who are guilty of committing these crimes in the past. We must also do everything in our power to compel the Indian government to respect the rights of the Sikhs in Punjab and the Muslims in Kashmir to freedom from abuses, democracy, and self-determination. I ask to enter the New York Times article on the massacres into the Record. [From the New York Times, Sept. 16, 1996] A Decade After Massacre, Some Sikhs Find Justice (By John F. Burns) New Delhi, September 15.--A dismal air pervades the dank residential blocks of Tilak Vihar, a gloom that goes beyond the unpaved lanes turned to swamps by monsoons and the stench of human waste. In this quarter of New Delhi, the degration common in Indian slums is compounded by a blankness on the faces, a lack of the optimism and vitality that, against all odds, inspirits so many of India's poor. The quarter's popular name is Widows' Colony. In these walk-up blocks live hundreds of women and children who lost their husbands, fathers, sons and brothers in the massacre of thousands of Sikhs that followed the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in October 1984. Mrs. Gandhi was shot in the garden of her New Delhi home by Sikhns in her security detail, who acted to avenge hundreds of Sikhs killed in a crackdown by Mrs. Gandhi's Government on insurgents holed up in the holiest Sikh temple in India. For many Indians, the massacre, and India's failure until recently to punish any of those responsible, has been one of the darkest chapters in the country's half-century of independence. Two men found guilty of Mrs. Gandhi's murder was hanged in 1988. But despite evidence implicating politicians, police officers and officials in the anti-Sikh rioting, not a single person had been convicted for the killings that followed the assassination until a magistrate imposed a death sentence this week on a butcher found guilty of two of the Skih murders. Evidence presented in court indicated he was involved in at least 150 other killings. The death sentence on the butcher, Kishori Lai, was the latest move in personal crusade by the magistrate, Shiv Narain Dinghra. Two weeks ago, Mr. Dinghra drew headlines across India by sentencing 89 of the 1984 rioters to jail terms of five years, to be served under the ``rigorous imprisonment'' regime that is the harshest imposed in Indian jails. They were sentenced for crimes like arson, illegal use of exposives, rioting, looting and curfew-breaking. Last fall, Mr. Dinghra, a hitherto obscure figure, sentenced 44 others for their roles in the rioting, the first such action since 1984. Although the Sikh insurgency in the Punjab was effectively crushed in the early 1990's, the legacy of 1984 has embittered many of India's 18 million Sikhs, whose culture and religion are closely linked to India's predominant faith, Hinduism, from which Sikhism, emerged in an 18th century schism. India's failure until now to make any reckoning for the 1984 killings has also troubled many secular Indians who have taken the Government's inaction as a token of a growing tendency among Hindu politicians who dominate the major parties to pander to sectarian impulses. Even Mr. Dinghra's efforts are discounted as tokenism by many Sikhs like Gurucharan Singh Babbar. Mr. Babbar, a Sikh activist, has campaigned on behalf of the riot victims, causing him to be branded a ``terrorist'' by the Government of Rajiv Gandhi, who succeeded his mother as Prime Minister, and was assassinated himself in 1991. At his home in New Delhi, Mr. Babbar has piles of affidavits from victims' families that prove, he says, that 5,015 Sikhs were killed, more than double the official figure of 2,300. But Mr. Dinghra is part of what many people see as a wider awakening of conscience among India's judiciary that many Indians believe could be the spur to wider changes in the way the country is governed. The new judicial assertiveness first surfaced in rulings by the Supreme Court that swept aside efforts by the Government of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao to shield Mr. Rao and others from corruption investigations.The judges have accompanied many of their rulings with wider conclusions about the need to rein in the arrogance and criminality that, the judges have said, has become a trademark of Indian politics. Mr. Dinghra picked up these themes last month in sentencing the 1984 rioters to jail terms. Calling the Government's show of investigating the killings over the years ``a farce,'' Mr. Dinghra said the attitude among top officials at the time was that ``the massacre was necessary to teach a lesson'' to India's Sikhs. But the larger lesson of Government inaction in the case, he said, was that justice was available only to those with power. ``Cases against the rich and influential either do not reach the courts, or, if they do, they are seldom finalized, while the cries of the victims go unheard,'' he said. A similar conclusion was reached long ago by Satnami Bai, a 36-year-old grandmother, who has waited years to get justice for her husband, Mohan, a 30-year-old driver of a motorized rickshaw who was among the Sikh men pulled from their homes in New Delhi by Hindu mobs, beaten, with staves and iron bars, then burned alive. Earlier this year, Mrs, Bai successfully petitioned for a criminal indictment in her husband's killing to be drawn up against a former minister in Mrs. Gandhi's government, H.K.L. Bhagat. Mr. Bhagat, 75, who has pleaded not guilty, was Mrs. Gandhi's Information Minister. He was named by several unofficial inquiries conducted immediately after the killings as being one of several powerful Congress Party politicians who instigated and led the 1984 killings. Under Rajiv Gandhi's prime ministership, Mr. Bhagat prospered, holding four ministerial posts and heading the Congress Party in New Delhi. After Mr. Gandhi's Government fell in 1989, Mr. Bhagat stayed on in a luxurious Government bungalow, protected by an elite security force, the Black Cats. Only this spring, when Mrs. Bai's pressures prompted his indictment, was he forced out of the bungalow, and then only after Mr. Rao, the Congress Party leader and then Prime Minister, ordered housing officials to write off tens of thousands of dollars Mr. Bhagat owed in back rent. The Congress Party has been in an accelerating decline, and its humiliation in a general election earlier this year has emboldened those who have long wanted a reckoning. For these people, Mrs. Bai is just as much a hero as Mr. Dinghra. Now working as a $50-a-month cleaner in a Government-run dispensary, a job given to her under a program to compensate widows of the 1984 massacre, Mrs. Bai said powerful figures apparently still believed that people like her could be stopped in their efforts to secure justice. After Mr. Bhagat was hauled into court for the first time, Mrs. Bai said, a woman who identified herself as a relative of Mr. Bhagat called Mrs. Bai at work and offered her 500,000 rupees, equivalent to $14,300, if she dropped the case against him. ``I said, `Fine, we'll do a deal, but forget about the 500,000 rupees,' '' Mrs. Bai recalled. ``Instead, I said, `Just give me my husband back, and I'll drop the case.' ''