Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Now I do not understand what the gentleman is saying there. He is saying that he is below the President's request. I got the President's request for developmental assistance here in front of me, and it says $1,006,000,000, and the gentleman has got $1,150,000,000 in the bill.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, in the area of development aid, the Clinton administration asked for $1.6 billion in developmental aid for fiscal year 1997. The committee recommendation is for $1.150 billion, or $144 million more than what the administration requested. It seems to me that that is excessive. We have a lot of areas where we believe that AID has abused or been very excessive in spending money that was not necessary. I would like to give just a few examples. In El Salvador, AID-sponsored economists organized a socialistic land reform program in the early 1980's that nationalized land holdings, banks, and private export companies. After the United States had spent billions of dollars in El Salvador, former President Cristiani of El Salvador said that millions of dollars would be needed just to correct the damage done by United States assistance in nationalizing the economy. In other words, he is saying, because of the socialistic policies that were put forth by AID in giving the billions of dollars and dictating where the money was going to go when a democratic administration came in under Mr. Cristiani, he said it was going to take millions just to correct the damage done by the United States assistance that was given by AID. In Nicaragua, after the Sandinistas lost the 1990 election, more than $1 billion in direct and indirect United States aid flooded Nicaragua. Hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars, taxpayers' dollars, were lost bailing out a corrupt banking system largely controlled by the Communist Sandinista bureaucrats and loan officers. Even today this fiasco threatens Nicaragua's democracy. In the 1980's AID spent $7 million to create a 1,000-acre farm in Burundi in Africa to raise improved corn seed varieties. This farm cost the American taxpayers $7,000 an acre, which is a outrageous price to pay for land in that area. The project was a disaster because AID located the farm near the President of Burundi's home village, even though this was an area of the country where the soil conditions were not conducive to growing corn. AID was simply trying to placate the President's desire to have a fancy foreign aid project in his home village. It turned out that there were never any improved varieties of corn seed to be grown in Burundi because the ag research had never been done. AID is on a spending orgy. It needs to be stopped, and I call on my colleagues to support this amendment. We are not cutting AID below what the administration itself asked. President Clinton asked for $1,006,000,000. This bill appropriates $1,150,000,000, $144 million above what the President has asked for. It is excessive, it should be cut, and I hope my colleagues will support my amendment.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, let me say I think there is a place for a certain amount of foreign aid, but there are a number of areas where we can make some economies and make some cuts. One of those is in the administrative costs over at AID. I want to read a quote from one of the senior staffers at AID. Her name is Sally Shelton, and my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, has heard me use this quote before. Here is what she said. She said, ``Larry Byrne,'' assistant administrator for management at AID, ``said that AID was 62 percent,'' almost two-thirds of the way, ``through the fiscal year and we have 38 percent of the dollar volume of procurement actions completed; we need to do,'' or spend, ``another $1.9 billion in the next 5 months. There are large pockets of money in the field * * * so let's get moving.'' The indication was that they had not spent enough money, and they wanted to spend this money very rapidly so they could ask for an additional appropriation the next year. That is the kind of craziness that goes on in the bureaucracy that needs to be corrected. The only way to correct that, in my opinion, when we find this out is to make economies or cuts in those particular areas to send a signal. When I was in the Indiana General Assembly, I was a State senator, and I went into an office. I was sitting waiting to see somebody. I heard a fellow talking around the corner. He said, ``We have got to spend x number of millions of dollars in the next 60 days or else we cannot ask for an additional appropriation from the State legislature.'' I stuck my head around the corner and said, ``What is your name?'' And he said, ``Who are you?'' And I said, ``I am Senator Burton,'' and his face got kind of gray. I said, ``How can you be saying things like that, you want to spend money as fast as you can right now so you can ask for more money later on?'' What we need to be doing in government is putting a suggestion box on all of the walls of the bureaucracies saying ``If you come up with a suggestion that is going to save money, we will give you a bonus.'' In other words, we want to encourage cutting spending and saving money. Here we have just the opposite. That is the same thing that was going on in my great State of Indiana when I was a State senator. We have bureaucrats who say, ``Hey, we have to get more money next year, and if we are going to ask for more money, we have to spend what we already have.'' Here we have one of the chief executive officers at AID saying ``We have to spend $1.9 billion in the next 5 months or else we cannot ask for more money.'' That is just unconscionable. I would like to say to my colleagues, I am going to have some amendments today that will cut some spending in Federal programs. They are not going to cut into the muscle and bone, but I think they will cut into the fat, and they will certainly send a signal. It is time, if we are really concerned about balancing the budget, that we make these economies and send a signal to the bureaucracy: Do not spend more money to get more money, spend less money to do a good job.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a sad date--the 12th anniversary of the Indian Government's brutal attack on the Golden Temple--the holiest shrine of the Sikh religion. This military assault, which many of my colleagues will remember vividly, took place in June 1984, in the state of Punjab. Mr. Speaker, the Golden Temple is to the Sikh religion what the Vatican is to Christians or Mecca is to Muslims. Thirty-eight other Sikh temples were attacked by the Indian Army throughout Punjab. In all, more than 20,000 Sikhs were killed by Indian forces in these attacks, many in brutal mass executions. Many unarmed civilians were shot at point-blank range. The entire world was appalled by this senseless attack. Indian soldiers burned the Golden Temple's library, which contained countless original manuscripts of Sikh scriptures. The Sikh holy book--the Guru Granth Sahib--was shot full of holes. This brutal repression of the Sikh people and the Sikh religion was condemned by governments around the world. For the Sikh people, it crystallized the growing movement for an independent homeland by the name of Khalistan. Mr. Speaker, the Golden Temple massacre kicked off a wave of repression that has not abated to this day. More than 1.1 million Indian soldiers occupy Punjab and the neighboring state of Kashmir today. Over the last 12 years, they have released a reign of terror over both the Sikh and Kashmiri people--including widespread torture, summary executions, gang rapes of women, abductions, and disappearances of innocent civilians. It has been estimated by many that over 150,000 Sikhs have died in the violence since the attack at the Golden Temple. The recent election results and the growing strength of the Hindu fundamentalist BJP party offer little hope for improvement in India's record of abuse. India now has its third government in 3 weeks. Now more than ever, it is especially important that governments around the world mark the anniversary of the attack on the Golden Temple by urging the Indian Government to exercise restraint and respect the rights of all people to democracy, self-determination, and freedom from human rights abuses. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring H.R. 1425, which would cut off development aid to India until it respects human rights, and House Concurrent Resolution 32, which calls for self- determination for the Sikh people, who have suffered for too long under a repressive regime.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, what I did in my special order was ask a number of questions that were still unanswered. One of the questions that I think is very, very important is why did the Arkansas Development Financial Authority send $50 million of Arkansas money to the Cayman Islands to deposit in a bank in the Cayman Islands, which is a major drug transit point acknowledged by almost every DEA agent in the world? Why would they send $50 million of Arkansas money down there? That is a question that needs to be answered. I have the electronic bank transfer statements in my office. I am going to put them in the Congressional Record. There is no doubt the money was wired to the Cayman Islands. The question needs to be asked, why was it wired? Why would the Governor of Arkansas allow that? Why would the Arkansas Development Financial Authority, a State-run agency, send their money out of the country to a drug haven? I hope that the independent counsel will explore that. We are going to ask other questions as well.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this week, the President's business partners in the Whitewater venture were found guilty of a total of 22 counts of bank fraud. James and Susan McDougal were President and Mrs. Clinton's business partners in the Whitewater Development Corp.--which is still the main focus of Kenneth Starr's investigation. In addition, Jim Guy Tucker, Bill Clinton's successor as Governor of Arkansas, was found guilty of conspiracy and mail fraud. Recently, a number of my colleagues have been raising questions about Mr. Starr's ethics and his work as Independent Counsel. They have stated that he is biased because of his Republican background or his legal work for different clients. Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense being put out by the Democrats for political purposes. Mr. Starr's results speak for themselves: First, of 19 charges that Mr. Starr filed against Mr. McDougal, he was convicted on 18. Second, of four charges Mr. Starr filed against Mrs. McDougal, she was convicted on all four. Third, of seven charges filed against Governor Tucker, he was convicted on two. Fourth, of 30 charges Mr. Starr filed in these cases, he won convictions on 24. That is an 80 percent conviction rate. A jury of 12 Arkansas citizens has examined the evidence and clearly does not feel that Mr. Starr is filing frivolous or unsupported charges. Fifth, in addition to this week's convictions, Mr. Starr has received guilty pleas from nine other people involved in Whitewater--political associates of President Clinton, associates of Madison Guarantee Savings and Loan, and people who worked on the Whitewater deal. Sixth, one of those people who pled guilty was the Associate Attorney General of the United States--Webster Hubbell--a close friend of the President. Clearly, serious crimes have been committed, and the independent counsel is doing a good job of bringing people to account for them. That is why Democrats are suddenly attacking the Independent Counsel. At this point, there are two obvious questions that everyone is asking: First, what impact do these convictions have on the President and Mrs. Clinton? Second, where does the Independent Counsel go from here? Let me shed a little light on these questions. What impact do these convictions have on the President and Mrs. Clinton? President Clinton was not on trial in this particular case. But he was never far away from it either. David Hale testified that then-Governor Clinton pressured him to make the illegal loan of $300,000 to Susan McDougal. Documents presented during the trial showed that part of that money went to pay debts of the Whitewater Development Corp. Bill and Hillary Clinton were partners in Whitewater, so they directly benefited from this loan. The defense believed President Clinton's testimony during the trial would be a knockout punch for the defendants. It wasn't. The President's testimony apparently did little to cast doubts on the prosecution's case. Mr. and Mrs. McDougal were convicted on 22 of 23 counts. The Castle Grande real estate deal was at the heart of this case. As an attorney at the Rose Law Firm, Hillary drew up legal papers for some of the key transactions. Throughout the trial, documentary evidence showed that this deal was a series of sham transactions that helped bring about the downfall of Madison Guarantee Savings and Loan. This raises a very serious question: How much did Hillary Clinton know about the true nature of the Castle Grande deal? For 4 years, Mrs. Clinton has been telling the public that she did very little legal work on the Castle Grande project. She made this statement in a sworn statement to Federal banking investigators. However, the Rose Law Firm billing records that mysteriously turned up at the White House in January disputed that statement. Even though they had been under subpoena for 2 years, the records weren't given to the Independent Counsel until they were ``discovered'' in January. It was quickly discovered that the billing records had Mrs. Clinton's fingerprints on them. More importantly, these records for the first time provided documentation that Mrs. Clinton had drafted legal documents for Castle Grande. The questions that this raises are numerous: First. Did Mrs. Clinton mislead Federal investigators about her involvement in Castle Grande? Second. Did she or anyone at the White House obstruct justice by hiding these records for 2 years. Third. Did Mrs. Clinton understand the nature of the sham transactions for which she was drawing up option agreements? Where does the Independent Counsel go from here? There are many other facets of the Whitewater scandal that merit continued investigation: First, the Whitewater deal itself; second, potentially illegal contributions to Bill Clinton's campaigns; and third, the death of Vincent Foster. One important area that I hope the Independent Counsel is exploring is the Arkansas Development Finance Authority--or ADFA. ADFA was created by Governor Clinton in 1985 to provide economic development loans in Arkansas. In December of 1988, ADFA deposited $50 million in a Japanese bank in the Cayman Islands. I have a copy of the contract that I will enter into the record. I have also delivered a copy of this document to the Independent Counsel's office. Why would an economic development agency in Arkansas deposit $50 million in a bank in the Cayman Islands? The Cayman Islands are a well- known center of money laundering for drug dealers. The State Department's international narcotics control report described the Caymans as ``a haven for money laundering.'' In addition, public documents show that ADFA was steering bond underwriting business to a firm owned by Dan Lasater. Mr. Lasater's story by now is well-known. He was a financial supporter of Bill Clinton's campaigns. He flew Bill and Hillary Clinton around on his private plane. He hired Bill Clinton's brother and paid off an $8,000 drug debt he owed. Mr. Lasater also pled guilty to Federal charges of cocaine distribution. Why was ADFA steering business to someone like Dan Lasater, who was well-known in Arkansas for drug use and wild parties at which drugs were freely distributed? Why was ADFA putting millions of dollars in foreign banks in a money- laundering haven like the Cayman Islands? Was then-Governor Clinton aware of what was going on at the agency that he created? All of these questions need to be resolved. The Independent Counsel should not quit--and I am confident that he will not quit--until these questions are completely answered to the public's satisfaction. 2000 The questions that this raises are numerous: Did Mrs. Clinton mislead the Federal investigators about her involvement in Casa Grande? Did she or anyone else in the White House obstruct justice by hiding these records for 2 years? Did Mrs. Clinton understand the nature of the sham transactions for which she was drawing up option agreements.? Second, where does the independent counsel go from here? There are many other facets of the Whitewater scandal that merit continued investigation: the Whitewater deal itself, potentially illegal contributions to Bill Clinton's campaigns, the death of Vince Foster. One important area that I hope the independent counsel is exploring is the Arkansas Development Financial Authority. The ADFA was created by Governor Clinton in 1985 to provide economic development loans in Arkansas. In December of 1988 the Arkansas Development Financial Authority deposited, and get this, $50 million in a Japanese bank in the Cayman Islands. I have a copy of the contract that I will enter into the Record. Tomorrow night, since I am out of time now, Mr. Speaker, I will go into more detail on this $50 million that was Arkansas money that was transferred to the Cayman Islands, a major transit point for drug trafficking in this hemisphere.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, for many years I have talked about the horrible human rights violations that have been talking place around the world, but in particular in a place called Punjab in Kashmir and Nagaland in India. Because of that, I have been the target of people who support the Indian lobby in the United States. At one time, my life was threatened, as well as that of my wife and my children, and they have supported my opponents in campaigns year in and year out. I understand that because I have been talking about the gang raping of women that has been taking place over there, the tortures of individuals who have been taken out of their homes in the middle of the night to be tortured to death never to be seen again, and the placing of about 1.1 million Indian troops in Punjab and Kashmir and Nagaland to repress those people up there because all they want is freedom, democracy and human rights. But today, Mr. Speaker, I found out some additional things that need to be brought to the attention of my colleagues and the American people. I found out, Mr. Speaker, that the Indian Embassy has been caught red-handed violating America's national sovereignty and democratic values. Newspapers have reported that a Maryland political fundraiser named Lalit Gadhia confessed that the Embassy provided over $46,000, which he used to reimburse friends of associates for political contributions that he solicited. These contributions went to pro-India Members of Congress and to a political action committee, the Indian American Leadership Investment Fund. India's violations of democratic principles have now come to the United States of America. The scheme was run by former Indian Ambassador S.S. Ray and Embassy official Devendra Singh. It is illegal for noncitizens to contribute to U.S. political campaigns or for anyone to make a contribution in another person's name. Yet this is not the first time that the Indian Embassy has been caught interfering in U.S. political campaigns. Earlier this year, it came to light that former Ambassador Ray urged Indian Americans to support a candidate in the South Dakota senate race, and the Embassy sent out a letter attacking a member of this House who is running for senator in New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, now they are infecting the American political process with foreign money. They must believe that America is corrupt. This interference leads one to believe that the Indian journalist Rajinder Puri of the Times of India was right when he described India as, ``A rotten, corrupt, repressive and antipeople system.'' The U.S. Government must make it clear that India's interference in American politics is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1425, which will cut off U.S. development aid to India until it respects human rights, and House Concurrent Resolution 32, which calls for self-determination for the Sikhs of Khalistan. These two measures will show the Indian Government that their disregard for human rights and democratic principles are not to be tolerated. In addition, India illegally tried to influence congressional elections and that will not be tolerated as well. I hope that the new government of India will correct these practices and that India and the United States can begin to live together in mutual respect for freedom, democracy and human rights, and that the new government will respect the sovereignty of other nations and not be in fear in our elective process. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the articles referred to earlier and a press release from the Council of Khalistan of the Gadhia case: [From the Washington Times, May 9, 1996] Democrat Guilty of Laundering Contributions (By Mary Pemberton) Baltimore.--A Democratic Party activist pleaded guilty yesterday to devising a scheme to funnel $46,000 in illegal contributions to a political action committee and several federal election campaigns. Lalit H. Gadhia, 57, who had been Gov. Parris Glendening's campaign treasurer, pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of causing a false statement to be made to the Federal Election Commission, U.S. Attorney Lynne A. Battaglia said. He faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine at sentencing Aug. 6. None of the money in question went to the governor's campaign. But Maryland Republican Party Chairman Joyce Lyons Terhes said Gadhia's activities are indicative of the type of people Mr. Glendening surrounds himself with. ``I think it is one more example of the flawed administration of Glendening,'' she said. But a state Democratic Party spokesman said it has nothing to do with Mr. Glendening and, if anything, reflects positively on the party. ``It is very unfortunate that he became overzealous, but the Clinton administration does not back off . . . even though this guy has been a strong supporter of Democrats,'' David Paulson said. The FBI said Gadhia approached the Indian-American Leadership Fund in the fall of 1994 and persuaded the New Mexico PAC to contribute to candidates other than Indian- Americans, as long as he did the fund raising. For three weeks in October 1994, Gadhia presented the PAC with checks totaling $34,900, which he said were contributions from a number of individuals. He also provided names, addresses and occupations for those individuals so that the PAC could file the required reports with the FEC. The PAC, in return, made political contributions to federal candidates selected by Gadhia in the November elections. For the most part, the money donated to the PAC did not come from the contributors, prosecutors, said. At least $31,400 of the funds provided to the PAC were laundered by individuals who issued checks to the Indian-American Leadership Fund and then were reimbursed in cash for their contributions by Gadhia or his intermediaries, according to the FBI. Prosecutors said Gadhia used the same type of scheme to launder $15,000 in illegal contributions that he provided directly to a number of federal election campaigns.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind remarks of my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that bothered me last year when the President vetoed the reconciliation bill was he gave a reason that I thought was just way off base, and that reason was that the 936 program, which gives tax credits to companies that go down to Puerto Rico and create jobs, was totally out of line. There are companies in Puerto Rico today, pharmaceutical companies and others, that are getting as much as $200,000 in tax credits to hire one person making $50,000. Let me repeat that. They are getting a $200,000 tax credit for some jobs where they only pay $50,000. And for the past 20 years, they were supposed to create jobs in Puerto Rico. They created 100,000 jobs, many of those people came from the United States to go down there. There were 100,000 jobs created. In the last 20 years, they have not created one more job, and we continue to give these huge tax credits. It is about $5 billion over a 5- to 6-year period; $5,000 million. These corporations do not want to give up these tax credits. Now, we wanted to use these tax credit moneys as offsets for these other things in these bills so there would be some balance. In other words, we were going to do away with, phase out the 936 program, and use those tax credits, those moneys to offset other expenses in the bills that we are talking about here today. The President has said once again that would be a reason for him to veto it. My Democrat colleagues talk about corporate welfare all the time. They say that they are against corporate welfare, and here is a classic example of corporate welfare that we could do something about and the President says he is going to veto it because of this issue. Can you imagine, $200,000 in tax credits for one $50,000 jobs, $5 billion over 5 to 6 years, and they are not creating one job, and that is what they are supposed to do. In addition to that, any money that they make in Puerto Rico, if they invest in Puerto Rican banks, it is tax exempt. They do not pay any taxes on it. So I just would like to say to my colleagues, I hope that they will talk to the administration, I am talking about the Democrats and Republicans, because this is one area where we could save $5 billion. And if we were creating a lot of new jobs and it was not costing an arm and leg, if there was another way to handle it, maybe with some wage credits, I would say OK. But to give $5 billion, to give $200,000 in tax credits for a $50,000 job, when they are not creating one additional job in Puerto Rico, is just dead wrong. So I think that we ought to talk to the administration. The 936 provision phaseout is in the bill. It ought to stay in the bill, and we ought to make sure this is not a reason for the President to veto it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I took a 1-minute on the floor to discuss a problem that I think the American people demand we address. According to experts, 70 percent of all crime in this country is caused by people who are dealing in drugs or are drug related one way or another. Our kids are being infected by the drug culture. It is destroying our inner cities and our suburbs. It is causing a myraid of problems. The prisons are filled with people who have dealt with drugs, used drugs, or committed crimes while under the influence of drugs, and each one of these people that are incarcerated cost up to $30,000 a year to keep in jail. Yet the war on drugs goes on and on and on, and nothing seems to be accomplished. We read every day that more and more people have been arrested, more cocaine has been picked up by the DEA, and yet we hear about tons and tons of cocaine that is getting past them into the United States, even though they are working very, very hard to keep that kind of thing out of here. Now, I was in a place called the Upper Yuagua Valley in Peru about 4 years ago, and I found that 65 percent of all the coca in the world is produced in this one valley that is about 25 miles wide and about 150 to 200 miles long. We know exactly where two-thirds of the world's coca is produced. And right across the border in Bolivia another 20 to 25 percent of the world's coca is produced. So about 90 percent of the world's coca that is turned into crack and cocaine that comes into our country and affects our kids and hurts our society and costs the taxpayers billions of dollars is in these two locations, and we are not doing a darn thing about it. They have people down there we are paying to cut down these coca plants with a thing that is kind of like a metal weed-eater, and a good campesino cutting down these coca fields can only cut down about an acre a day. As fast as they cut it down, it is replaced tenfold by the drug dealers down there, the Medellin cartel and the others, and we cannot stop them. And we call this a war on drugs. So I said to my colleagues this morning and I say to the administration and anybody else, Mr. Speaker, that might be paying attention, that if there is a war on drugs, I missed it. And if we do not really have a war on drugs, then let us declare a war on drugs. We could put an aircraft carrier off the coast of Peru, load it up with a herbicide called tebucyron, or spike, and at 5 o'clock in the morning take off and fly up and down the Upper Yuagua Valley and drop these little pellets that are environmentally safe. We could do the same thing in Bolivia. We would have to fly a little bit further. But we could knock out 90 percent of the world's coca production in a week. I hope everybody is listening. In 1 week we could knock out 90 percent of the world's coca production. Now if you do not have coca, you cannot make coca paste, and if you do not have coca paste, you cannot make crack cocaine or cocaine. All of the chemicals that they use to perfect coca paste and make crack cocaine that is dumped into the tributaries that is going into the Amazon River and the other rivers down there, that will no longer be going into those rivers, thus infecting the environment and killing the environment. So I would like to say to my colleagues today, if we really wanted to stop cocaine, or if we really want to destroy the poppy plants and heroin use in this country, we know where they are producing it. All we have to do is have the guts to go in there and destroy it. And we have the ability to do it. Now, the State Department, I talked to them about it, and they said well, we cannot violate the territorial sanctity of a sovereign nation, meaning we cannot go across the border of Peru or Bolivia without their permission. What are they going to do, shoot down our planes? Of course they would not do that. The fact of the matter is the war on drugs really is not a war on drugs; it is a hollow political statement that does not mean a darn thing. And we are spending billions of dollars nipping around the edges and our kids continue to be infected with this sort of thing. We could deal with it very quickly. So I want to say to my colleagues, in closing, there is a way to deal with it. Go down there and destroy the coca plants and they will not make crack cocaine. They will not make cocaine, and it will send a tremendous signal to the drug cartels around the world, and that is, if they plant that stuff, we are going to destroy it. Now, some of my colleagues say, well, then they will start making designer drugs in the United States. Well, if they do that, we can nail them at their laboratories because we will be able to pinpoint those. Now we know where the coca is coming from and we are not doing a darn thing about it, and it is a crying shame because it is killing American citizens.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to meet with several prominent Kashmiri leaders to discuss the Indian Government's intentions to force elections upon the people of Indian- occupied Kashmir on May 23 and May 30, 1996. While I was not surprised to hear that Indian security forces are continuing to commit numerous human rights abuses against innocent Kashmiris, I was astonished to learn of how far the Indian Government is going to deceive the outside world into believing that Kashmiris actually support the upcoming elections. I have been informed that the Indian Army is going door to door telling Kashmiris that they were legally bound to participate in the election and threatening physical retaliation against Kashmiris who fail to vote. Buses are being diverted from their normal routes to transport people to rallies supposedly in favor of elections. I have also been told that the Indian Government has organized 50,000 people to pose as Kashmiris and to travel throughout Kashmir on election day casting votes at every stop all under the watchful eyes and cameras of a select few reporters chosen by India to paint the elections as a great success. Mr. Speaker, it is quite well known by everyone who follows the Kashmir issue that the only vote people of Indian-occupied Kashmir desire is a vote which includes the option of independence from India. This option, while promised on numerous occasions by the United Nations, has been continually denied by the brutal Government of India. Why is self-determination deemed an inalienable right for so many peoples of the world, yet so taboo when talk turns to Kashmir? Are the peoples of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Armenia, and Azerbaijan more capable or worthy of self- government than the people of Kashmir? Historically, Kashmir has been ruled as a princely state far longer than it has been part of India--a country which has existed less than 50 years. Its claims to independence are just as strong as those of the former Republics of the Soviet Union. Mr. Speaker, I have heard some political theorists argue that granting the Kashmiris their independence would prove destabilizing to South Asia and could facilitate the breakup of India. Hogwash! What could be more stabilizing for India than to give the Kashmiris, who clearly do not want Indian rule, their freedom. No longer would India have to devote hundreds of thousands of troops and huge amounts of money to suppressing the Kashmiris. Even if the transition to independence proved turbulent, would it be any more turbulent than the transition of the former Soviet Republics to New Independent States? Is avoiding potential instability a higher goal than freeing people from an oppressive ruler? Mr. Speaker, I hope everyone in the United States will be watching the upcoming elections in Kashmir very carefully. It is obvious that the Indian Government wants the world to stop asking these tough questions and wants the world's eyes to turn away from this troubled part of the world. That is why the Indian Government is going to such extremes to stage these elections. However, this should not come as a surprise to anyone who has had an opportunity to see what India is willing to do here in the United States to shield itself from United States congressional scrutiny. I encourage all my colleagues in the Congress to read the Thursday, May 9, 1996, Baltimore Sun article which documents how the Indian Embassy recently funneled $46,000 in illegal campaign contributions to United States congressional candidates whom it perceived to be sympathetic to India. Such tampering in United States electoral politics by the Indian Embassy cannot be tolerated. [From the Baltimore Sun, May 9, 1996] Campaign Fund-Raiser Admits Guilt (By Jim Hanker and Mark Matthews) A prominent fund-raiser for Maryland Democrats pleaded guilty yesterday to election fraud in a scheme to launder at least $46,000 in illegal campaign contributions he received from an official at the embassy of India in 1994. Lalit H. Gadhia--a 57-year-old immigration lawyer and former campaign treasurer to Gov. Parris N. Glendening-- confessed in U.S. District Court in Baltimore to his role in the scheme to influence congressional lawmakers involved in foreign-policy decisions affecting India. An immigrant from Bombay, India, who was active in Baltimore's early civil rights movement, Gadhia now faces up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Sentencing is scheduled for this summer. Prosecutors say the case against Gadhia is one of only a handful of cases in which foreign citizens or governments have been linked to illegal campaign contributions in a U.S. political race, and may be the first time an official of a foreign embassy has been implicated. ``The fact that the money came from the Indian Embassy and that so many people were manipulated into participating in the scheme takes this case to a higher level than we normally see in these kind of investigations,'' said U.S. Attorney Lynn A. Battaglia. ``Obviously, we have not seen a case like this in Baltimore before.'' Among those who received the illegal funds were four members of the Maryland delegation and congressmen in Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio. According to documents filed in the case, federal authorities could find no evidence that any of the recipients was aware of the true source of the contributions. ``The campaign assumed that these were appropriate contributions,'' said Jesse Jacobs, press secretary for Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes, the Marylander who is the third-ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Sarbanes received $4,500 of the questionable contributions. Other Maryland Democrats who received $3,000 contributions each were Reps. Benjamin L. Cardin and Steny H. Hoyer and former Rep. Kweisi Mfume. In all, 19 Democratic candidates nationwide got the money shortly before the 1994 elections through a network of prominent Indian-American businessmen in Maryland, their families and employees of their companies. The donors then were reimbursed by Gadhia, who admitted yesterday that he used money from a minister at the Embassy of India in Washington. Under Foreign Election Commission rules, it is illegal for noncitizens to make political contributions or for anyone to make donations in another person's name. But Gadhia never informed donors that the money was coming from India--or told them that it was a crime to accept reimbursement for a donation. ``The vast majority of people in the Indian-American community nationally are going to be appalled by this,'' said Subodh Chandra, 28, a Los Angeles lawyer who heads a political action committee that unwittingly received at least $31,400 of the illegal contributions from Gadhia. ``We can only hope at this point that these were the acts of a lone bumbler or group of bumblers and not some sort of international intrigue involving the Indian government. Whatever the case may be, it has harmed an immigrant community in this country that has worked hard for political recognition,'' Chandra said. The scheme first came to light last year after a two-month investigation by The Sun into Chandra's PAC, the Indian- American Leadership Investment Fund. Federal campaign finance records showed that almost all of the group's money came from Baltimore donors with ties to Gadhia, who then was Glendening's campaign treasurer. Donating mostly in $1,000 and $500 increments, contributors ranged from prominent Indian-American engineers and doctors to cooks, busboys, students and secretaries who never before had made a political donation. A half-dozen contributors interviewed said they were paid by Gadhia or his nephew to write the checks, but had no idea the practice was illegal. Satish Bahl, a part owner of the Akbar Restaurant on Charles Street--where kitchen employees made $13,500 in bogus contributions--echoed other Baltimore donors in saying he now feels badly used by his former friend. ``I had no idea--absolutely no idea,'' he said yesterday. ``We were not aware of the consequences. We were only involved thirdhand. We never thought about how far this could go.'' Gadhia denied the allegations at the time of The Sun's investigation. But the case against him continued to build last summer as FBI agents issued subpoenas to those who gave to the PAC or who attended fund-raisers held by Gadhia for Maryland congressional candidates, Baltimore Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke and presidential aspirants Bill Clinton and Michael S. Dukakis. former md official Gadhia was at the height of his political influence, having been rewarded by Glendening with an $80,000-a-year post as his deputy secretary of international economic development. Within days, the governor demanded his resignation. The allegations of wrongdoing stunned Baltimore's close- knit Indian-American community because Gadhia was its de facto political leader--the man with the golden Rolodex who could produce thousands of dollars in contributions with a round of telephone calls. Then, on May 8, 1995, FBI agents seized documents from Gadhia's Charles Street office that quickly expanded the investigation beyond the PAC contributions. According to records released yesterday by the U.S. attorney's office in Baltimore, the courier bill was addressed to a minister named Devendra Singh at the ``Embassy of India'' and it contained checks not only to the PAC but to 12 Democratic lawmakers. The records enabled the FBI to trace some $46,000 in illegal contributions back to Singh at the embassy, Battaglia said. Singh, who now is a high-ranking police official in Rajasthan state in India, was minister for personnel and community affairs at the embassy at the time. Among his duties was to reach out to prominent Americans who had immigrated from India and seek their support for the government. no such contribution The current minister for community affairs, Wajahat Habibullah, denied that the embassy is involved in trying to influence U.S. foreign policy through campaign contributions. ``I have not made any such contribution,'' he said, adding that diplomats at the embassy have a budget for entertaining dignitaries but not for political donations. ``Certainly it is not part of our work.'' But it is not the first time the issue has come up. India's current ambassador has been in Washington only since April. But his predecessor, Siddhartha Ray, who is now running for Parliament in India, drew harsh criticism from Indiana Republican Rep. Dan Burton for his statements backing certain members of Congress who were known to be strong supporters of India. ``We are very concerned about political activities at the Indian Embassy,'' Burton's chief of staff, Kevin Binger, said of the Gadhia guilty plea. ``We feel very strongly that it should stay out of political races. Any allegation that this is going on should be investigated and made an issue with the Indian government.'' Said embassy spokesman Shiv Mukherjee: ``The Indian Embassy operates fully within the bounds of diplomatic propriety.'' Officially, the State Department had no comment. Privately, however, officials chalked up the illegal contributions that were funneled through Gadhia's Maryland political network to a lack of sophistication in how to influence the American political system. One official said the Indians had made a fumbling start in their attempt to copy the formidable clout wielded on Capitol Hill by such countries as Greece and Israel, which are aligned with powerful and well-financed Washington lobbies. India and its supporters in Washington have been extremely vocal in trying to limit U.S. military assistance to India's longtime adversary, Pakistan--most recently, the sale of 38 F-16 fighters. As the Clinton administration has tried to improve trade and political ties with India while not damaging relations with Pakistan, much of this debate has played itself out before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House International Relations Committee. Federal Election Commission records show that the committee members have become magnets for campaign contributions from Pakistani and Indian immigrants living in the United States-- and for Gadhia's laundered contributions. In addition to Sarbanes, other Democratic committee members targeted were Sen. Charles S. Robb of Virginia, $2,000; Rep. Gary L. Ackerman of New York, $3,000; Rep. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, $3,000; Rep. Lee H. Hamilton of Indiana, $3,000; Rep Eliot L. Engel of New York, $3,000; Robert E. Andrews of New Jersey, $3,000; and Rep. Howard L. Berman of California, $2,800. State Department officials said yesterday's revelations were unlikely to do serious damage to U.S.-Indian relations. Nor does the Gadhia case appear to rise to the level of other campaign financing scandals involving foreign nationals. The Justice Department is investigating the campaign finances of Rep. Kim, a California Republican and the first Korean-American member of Congress. Since December, four Korean companies--Hyundai Motor America, Korean Air Lines, Daewoo International (America) Corp. and Samsung America--have paid a total of $1.2 million in fines in connection with illegal campaign contributions to Kim that were laundered through company employees. In 1994, a number of Japanese citizens and corporations paid a $162,225 civil penalty to the FEC for making more than $300,000 in illegal contributions in Hawaii during the 1980s. Perhaps the most famous episode of foreign intervention in recent history was the Korean scandal of the 1970s, in which a wealthy South Korean businessman funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes and contributions to U.S. politicians. Among those caught in the scandal, which implicated more than 30 members of Congress, was Hancho C. Kim, a Maryland businessman. He was sentenced to six years in prison in 1978 for accepting $600,000 in funds from the Korean government to influence members of Congress.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, last week I spoke about the new revelations that Mrs. Clinton's fingerprints were found on the billing records found in the White House. These records had been under subpoena by the special prosecutor for over 2 years, and they could not be found, and they turned up in the private living quarters of the First Lady and the President. Today I would like to expand on this topic and raise some of the many, many unanswered questions that remain to be resolved. According to the Washington Post, the documents that were found in the Clinton's personal residence were copies and not the originals. The originals disappeared during the campaign for President in 1992. This raises a very serious question: Where are the originals? Who has the originals? Why were they removed from the Rose law firm files and never replaced? They disappeared right after reporters started asking questions about the Whitewater Development Corp. It is widely believed that the billing records were removed from the law firm by Vincent Foster. The copies found in the White House residence had handwritten notes in the handwriting of both Mr. Foster and the First Lady. It is now well known that after Mr. Foster's death, a box full of documents were removed from his office and locked up in the Clinton's personal residence at the White House. This was done by Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff, Maggie Williams. We are told that the records, the Clinton's personal records, were later turned over to their lawyer, David Kendall, but the question remains, did these also include these phone records, these billing records, that were later found, 2 years later, up at the White House residence? This also raises numerous other questions. Were the billing records in Vince Foster's office before he died? Were they originals or were they copies? Did Maggie Williams, the First Lady's personal secretary, remove these billing records from his office and take them to the Clinton's residence along with the other information? Were either the originals or copies of the billing records turned over to Mr. Kendall with the Clinton's other personal records? Who else's fingerprints were found on these records? It has been reported in Newsweek that Maggie Williams was recalled to testify before the grand jury after these records were turned over to the Independent Counsel. Here is a very interesting point: After the billing records were found in January, White House aides insisted to reporters that the records definitely did not come from Vince Foster's office. However, they also told reporters that they did not know how the records got into the personal residence of the First Lady and the President, and we are still trying to determine the chain of custody. Now, if these White House aides had no idea how the records got into the personal residence in the first place, how could they be so sure they did not come from Vince Foster's office? The important thing to remember is that whoever knew that these records were in the White House and did not turn them over to the independent counsel is guilty of obstruction of justice. Whoever knew these records were in the White House and did not turn them over to the congressional committees that had subpoenaed them is guilty of contempt of Congress. One more point: The Washington Post reported that David Kendall was called to the White House after the records were discovered. He and White House lawyer Jane Sherburne discussed the fact that the FBI would probably want to check the records for fingerprints. However, they went ahead after they may have had this discussion and photocopied every single page of the documents. Did these two lawyers intentionally make it more difficult for the FBI to obtain fingerprints from the pages of the documents by handling these documents and photocopying them? It is very important to remember that these records contain information that casts serious doubts about Mrs. Clinton's sworn statements about her legal work for Madison Guaranty. There are two central questions that must be resolved: First, is it plausible that these records were found in Mrs. Clinton's personal residence, had her fingerprints on them, and her handwriting on them, and she had not seen them since 1992? Second, who has the originals of these billing records? These questions must be answered and answered very quickly.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, did my colleagues know there has been an increase in the number of Indian children in foster care to the tune of 25 percent since ICWA was passed? I submit that one of the reasons is because of the uncertainty of an adoptive parent, whether or not they are going to have litigation problems and maybe lose that child a year or two after they adopt them. Can my colleagues imagine wanting to adopt a child and they say, well, this child has one sixty-fourth Indian blood in them and because of that they may have a problem down the road with the tribe. And so the parent says, well, I want to adopt a child desperately, but am I going to have to pay $200,000 or $300,000 down the road to keep this child? Am I going to have roots grow in the family and love and cherish this child and have it taken away after 2 years? And I tell Members, that happens. That actually happens. We had a case, I would say to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], at a hearing we had this week, we had a family that adopted two children, and they did not even know these children had one sixty-fourth Indian blood, one sixty-fourth. And after 2 years, the tribe said we want those children back. The children had established roots, the parents loved the kids, the kids loved the parents, and here they were taking the kids away. That family has spent $300,000. They have almost lost their home because they had to mortgage it. And the case goes on and on and on, and those parents live in a nightmare, a living hell because they may have their kids taken away from them. That is wrong. Now, I understand what my good friend, the gentleman from Alaska, Don Young, is trying to do. He wants to protect the Indian tribes. But there is a bigger issue: the adoptive parents and the kids. I was in a guardian's home. I know what it is like to watch these kids go into foster care and spend years without hope and I can tell my colleagues, it is a hell. For us to say to parents that adopt a child, we are going to take your kids away after 2 years because they are one sixty-fourth Indian, is dead wrong. And to ask them to spend $200,000 or $300,000 defending themselves and still lose their child is wrong. This amendment needs to be defeated.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the gentlewoman from Ohio for her participation and hard work on this. I know she has done yeoman service. Let me just say that we also ought to thank a fellow who started with nothing, who became one of the greatest entrepreneurs in the world, started at 15 as an orphan, almost, Dave Thomas of Wendy's. He came up here on the hill a number of times and testified. Without his help, I am not sure we would be here tonight with this bill. So, Dave, if you are watching, thanks a lot for all your help. I spent some time in the Marian County Guardians Home. Kids who are in foster care in a guardians home want to get out. They want a loving home, and they want loving parents. And to keep them incarcerated, incarcerated in foster homes for long periods of time is just dead wrong. We had a hearing this week and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] brought in a gentleman to testify. I want to tell you a story, a practical story about what happens because of the problem we are having with the tribes as far as adoption is concerned. This fellow adopted a child who was \1/16\, I believe, 2 children, twins that were \1/16\ Indian. He had complete cooperation from the parents. I do not think he even knew at that time that they had any Indian blood in them. Nevertheless, he adopted them. Two years later, 2 years later actions were taken to try to take those children away from him because they were \1/16\ Indian. Let me tell you what happened to that family. He has spent $300,000 trying to keep his children; the children love him. He loves them. The mother loves the kids. They love her. And the children are in constant danger of being taken away from that family. The family is just about bankrupt. I think they have even mortgaged their home. That is not right. That has to be changed. There ought to be some constraints, some limits on how long any Indian tribe or any group has to take a child back in that kind of a case. I tell you, to take a child that has its roots established like a tree in that family for 2 years out of that family is just absolutely unconscionable. So this law needs to be passed in its entirety right now. It does not need the amendment. I love the gentleman from Alaska, Don Young. I have great respect for the gentleman from California. But we need to think about the families who adopted these kids. We need to think about the children who we want to get out of foster care into loving homes and after 2 years and $300,000 and taking a second mortgage on your home and losing everything and still have the possibility of having those children taken away from you is wrong. People across the country who watch television, who have seen these heart-rending cases where children are taken out in the middle of night by sheriffs because of a law in one State or another or because of a tribal law, people in this country do not like that. They want to change it. This is a good law. It needs to be kept intact. I love Don Young. He is a good friend of mine. We are working on other legislation. But, Don, you are wrong on this one. Let us let this thing as it is. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just say we had 20,000 American troops on the ground. We remember what happened in Beirut, Lebanon when 235 marines were blown to hell because of a terrorist driving through a barricade. After we had 20,000 Americans on the ground, Iran, who was behind what happened in Beirut, still was funneling supplies in. Not only that, there was also a terrorist training camp found by the NATO forces over there. So for the gentleman to say that this is not a big deal, it is a big deal.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We have it here.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, did the gentleman know that as of January of this year that they were still sending weapons in from Iran, after our troops were there, after we had 20,000 American troops on the ground?

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say we have a letter from the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], chairman of the Committee on House Oversight. He said that these funds are coming out of the standing committee special and select account. The money is there. There is no problem with it. In addition, there are no new funds required because it is coming from the $6 million that was saved by cutbacks in the cost of running the House and the committees of the House. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues and maybe to the American people who may be paying attention, while President Clinton was saying to the American people and to the Congress he did not want to lift the embargo against Bosnia, behind the scenes covertly he was talking to the Croatian Government saying that is OK, let Iran, another country whom we are embargoing, send these weapons underground in an underground pipeline into Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, he was telling the American people, he was telling the representatives of the American people, something else, lying to us, and yet dealing with the Croatians in a way that would allow the Iranians to send these weapons in. A cache of weapons was found by NATO forces in a safehouse there where Iranian terrorists were, and these are some of the weapons that were found: mortars; toys that children might pick up that would blow up in their hands; all kinds of weapons of destruction by the same people who were behind the bombing of our barracks in Beirut that killed 235 of our men. Mr. Speaker, the President misled the Congress of the United States of America. Now, my colleagues have said on a number of occasions today we are going to spend $1 million on a witch hunt and this is nothing we should be doing, we should not be spending this money. I want to remind them on Iran-Contra, that resulted in no one going to jail, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent $48 million, and a lot of people thought it was a witch hunt. Admiral Poindexter's career was tainted and it almost ruined him. My Democrat colleagues spent $2 million on the select committees in this House, $1.35 million on October Surprise, and it ended up costing a total of almost $5 million. Yet we are talking about less than $1 million to get to the bottom of this issue of whether or not the President of the United States may have violated the law, No. 1; or, No. 2, deliberately misled the Congress of the United States by sending incorrect messages up here through his Secretary of State. Mr. Speaker, let me end by saying that Secretary of State Christopher said to us on a number of occasions, ``We do not want to lift that embargo,'' and yet under the table they were working with the Iranian terrorists to fund that. I think it is wrong. We need to investigate.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleagues' frugality had been apparent when we were talking about the Iran-Contra investigation, which ended up with nobody really being convicted. Everybody was dismissed, and we spent $48 million; $48 million on Iran-Contra and $2 million on the select committee. On the October Surprise they spent $1.35 million. They cannot have it both ways. If something is done that is questionable and needs to be investigated and we need the resources to do it, they should be appropriated, just like you did, only you spent a heck of a lot more money than we are talking about.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, Newsweek magazine reported this week that the FBI had discovered Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton's fingerprints on billing records from the Rose law firm discovered at the White House in January. These billing records have been under subpoena and could not be found for over 2 years. Nobody knew where they were. And yet, just recently, they were found in President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton's personal residence at the White House by Mrs. Clinton's secretary. Independent counsel Kenneth Starr is investigating to determine if anyone obstructed justice by hiding the subpoenaed records. The billing records supply important information about Mrs. Clinton's work for Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan and the Castle Grande real estate projects. Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, who at the time this was taking place was the Lieutenant Governor under President Clinton, is on trial right now in Arkansas for fraud because he defaulted on loans over $1 million related to Castle Grande. Now, Mrs. Clinton was the billing partner at the Rose Law Firm for the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan account. However, she stated in a sworn statement to the Resolution Trust Corporation that she did very little work for Madison Guaranty and could not recall the Castle Grande project. Yet, these mysterious billing records, that could not be found for over 2 years that were just found, tell a different story. They show that she had 14 meetings and conversations with Madison executives about Castle Grande and she drafted a comprehensive option agreement for this project. Regarding the fingerprints, White House lawyers told reporters that Mrs. Clinton reviewed the billing records during the campaign in 1992. Now, this sounds strange, because if she reviewed them in 1992, she should have remembered that she had done extensive work on this project and on this comprehensive option agreement for the project. Anyhow, they said that the fingerprints on the telephone records can remain intact on paper and other materials for years, so her fingerprints on the billing records do not necessarily mean that she saw the records recently. Now, this is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, because when Vincent Foster died, you remember Vincent Foster, the assistant counsel to the President at the White House, when Vincent Foster died, a suicide note was found in his briefcase. At least that is what they called it. Despite the fact that it had been torn into 28 pieces, you have to tear it to get 28 pieces 14 of 15 times, there was not one single fingerprint on any one of those pieces. Investigators and various Clinton administration officials said at the time that it was not unusual, because fingerprints do not attach themselves easily to paper. Now, here we have the President's wife, the First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, her fingerprints are all over these telephone records that nobody could find for 2 years and were found in their residence, while they were under subpoena, incidentally, and they are saying that it is not unusual for the fingerprints to be attached to paper, and that she probably attached them to those documents in 1992 during the Presidential campaign. Now, you cannot have it both ways. Either it can be attached to paper, you can get fingerprints on paper, or you cannot. Her fingerprints were on the documents, but the fingerprints were not on Vince Foster's alleged suicide note. Adding to the mystery, the first two times that the White House counsel at the time, Bernie Nussbaum, search Vincent Foster's briefcase, he did not find any torn up note. The note was found 6 days later when another White House aide searched the briefcase for a third time. Now, Mr. Speaker, it has to be one way or the other. If fingerprints attach themselves easily to paper and stay there for years, there is no explanation for why Vincent Foster's note had no fingerprints on them, especially since it had been torn into 28 pieces. And if fingerprints do not attach themselves easily to paper and if they wear off quickly, then Mrs. Clinton must have handled the billing records more recently than her aides are saying, which was 4 years ago, in 1992. Mr. Speaker, this is something else that I hope we get to the bottom of. Those records were subpoenaed over 2 years ago. They should have been given to the independent counsel. They are not. They were found in the White House Presidential residence. They had the First Lady's fingerprints all over them. There is something very mysterious about this. It should be explained fully to the American people. They were subpoenaed. They may have been an obstruction of justice, keeping those records from the independent counsel. If that is the case, somebody should be held accountable for it. [From the Washington Post, Apr. 29, 1996] First Lady's Prints on Document, Magazine Says (By Susan Schmidt) Hillary Rodham Clinton's fingerprints have been identified on the legal billing records that were discovered in the White House In January, according to a published report. The records, sought for more than two years by Whitewater special investigators and the subject of several subpoenas, consist of a 116-page computer printout detailing work Clinton and other lawyers at the Rose Law Firm did during the 1980s for the now-failed Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan. The independent counsel's office asked for the fingerprint analysis in an attempt to determine where the records were, why it took so long to find them and whether there are grounds to bring obstruction of justice charges against anyone for failure to produce them. Newsweek reported in the issue on newsstands today that Clinton's fingerprints are among those the FBI has found on the document. Deputy White House counsel Mark Fabiani said the administration has no independent knowledge of the fingerprint analysis. ``In January we said it was possible Mrs. Clinton handled these records during the 1992 campaign, so this report should not be surprising,'' he said. Clinton said she did not recall whether she looked at the document during the campaign. Fingerprints can remain intact on some materials, including paper, for years. The billing records show that most of Clinton's work for Madison was on the Castle Grande project. That real estate project led to indictments, including some of the charges in the ongoing criminal trial in Arkansas of Madison operators James B. and Susan McDougal. The Clintons and McDougals were joint owners of Whitewater, another land venture in the Ozarks. In the billing records, Castle Grande is referred to under the name ``IDC,'' the entity that sold the land to Madison. During interviews with federal investigators in 1994 and 1995, Clinton was unable to recall most of the work that she did for Madison. In particular, she said she was unable to recall doing any work on Madison's Castle Grande real estate venture. The Rose billing records were discovered this year by Carolyn Huber, a White House aide who handles personal correspondence for the Clintons, as she unpacked items that had been in the ``book room'' in the White House residence. How the document got to the book room remains a mystery. David E. Kendall, the Clintons' attorney, and White House special counsel Jane Sherburne, called before the Senate Whitewater committee in January, testified that they realized the document--and the circumstances of its discovery after two years--would be of great interest to independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr and the committee. Sherburne said she raised the issue of whether Starr would want to check the document for fingerprints and questioned whether they should turn it over to Starr before copying it. After a discussion, she, Kendall and a lawyer for Huber decided to examine and copy the document and to notify Starr and the Senate committee the following day. Republicans contended that Sherburne and Kendall had knowingly made it more difficult to obtain fingerprints from the records. Yesterday, a White House official who refused to be named accused Starr's office of leaking the results of the fingerprint analysis, although the official said he didn't actually know the source of the information. ``It is not surprising that this outrageous leak should come at a time when independent counsel Starr is being criticized for allowing the erosion of public confidence in the fairness of his work because of his continuing partisan affiliations,'' said the official. Clinton aides have recently insisted that Starr's Republican credentials and outside legal work for clients with interests adverse to the government render him unfit to conduct an impartial probe.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on April 27-29, 1996, more than 1,300 students from 50 States and the District of Columbia were in Washington, DC to compete in the national finals of the We the People * * * The Citizen and the Constitution program. I am proud to announce that the class from Lawrence Central High School from Indianapolis, represented the 6th district of the State of Indiana. These young scholars worked diligently to reach the national finals by winning local competitions in their home State. The distinguished members of the team representing Indiana are: Amber Anderson, Carrie Anderson, Heather Bailey, Alicia Crichton, Nathan Criswell, Finda Fallah, Jeremy Freismuth, Lourie Gilbert, Robert Gordon, Phillip Gray, Amanda Gross, Tim Halligan, Lindsey Hamilton, Brandon Hart, Scott King, Brent Patterson, Mike Petro, Megan Pratt, Jason Roberts, Anthony Roque, C. David Smith, Tony Snider, Tomeka Stansberry, Crystal Sullivan, Sarah Thompson, Gene Wagner, Maurice Williams, and Mike Zabst. I would also like to recognize their teacher, Drew Horvath, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the team. The district coordinator, Langdon Healy, and the State coordinator, Robert Leming, also contributed a significant amount of time and effort to help the team reach the national finals. The We the People * * * The Citizen and the Constitution program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 3-day national competition simulates a congressional hearing in which students' oral presentations are judged on the basis of their knowledge of constitutional principles and their ability to apply them to historical and contemporary issues. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People * * * program, now in its 9th academic year, has reached more than 70,400 teachers, and 22,600,000 students nationwide at the upper elementary, middle, and high school levels. Members of Congress and their staff enhance the program by discussing current constitutional issues with students and teachers. The We the People * * * program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain an informed perspective on the significance of the U.S. Constitution and its place in our history and our lives. I am very proud of the achievements of these students from Lawrence Central High School.