John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to request that the distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), allow me a few moments that I may engage him in a friendly colloquy regarding this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), for the record, I have been in contact with your staff regarding funding for a wastewater treatment plant in Placer County, which is within my district. Due to an oversight, this project was unfortunately not included in the VA-HUD bill that is now before us. I would ask that the chairman, as we move forward in consideration of this bill, work to ensure that $1 million in funding be provided for the Placer County wastewater treatment project.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I hold my colleague from California in high regard, but I just have a different opinion about this. I agree with the majority leader. It is just unbelievable to me that we are talking about cutting FBI funds, the funds for the INS, which we believe goes to the Border Patrol, for the violent crime reduction programs, for the Federal prison system, even cutting judges' salaries in order to fund this Federal legal services program. Whatever happened to the States? Whatever happened to volunteerism? Why do we have to have the Federal Government step in and fill every little nook and cranny? We are in the era of downsizing and of moving power back from the Federal Government to the States. It is not as though there are not well-established programs and many, many attorneys across the country already donating their time. So, please, I support helping poor people as well as anyone else. It does not require increasing the budget of the Legal Services Corporation. I heard my friend who spoke earlier from Florida talk about giving them the benefit of the doubt. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. This is an entity that has repeatedly abused its authority, and now we find evidence that they have intentionally and wrongfully inflated their statistics with the intent to secure more funding. So we are going to turn around and give them more funding, when we have caught them red-handed deceiving the Congress about how much work they actually do? This is just outrageous. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) for his speech against this amendment, and I hope we will all join with him. We are about setting priorities. This is not a high priority. In fact, this agency deserves to be punished for the clear abuses it has committed. We should not reward them. What are we going to say to these arrogant Federal bureaucrats if we allow them to lie and then to be blessed with a huge increase in funding as a result of that lie? I think it is very, very bad policy. I think I should remind Members that this agency, we as a Congress actually had to get involved and tell the Legal Services Corporation through legislation that they could not get involved in redistricting, that they could not get involved in abortion litigation or prison litigation on behalf of prisoners' rights or welfare litigation or pro- union advocacy or union organizing; they could not get involved in fee- generating cases or representation of public housing tenants charged with possession of illegal drugs or against whom eviction proceedings had begun as a result of illegal drug activity; we had to tell them they could not get involved in representing illegal aliens. It is outrageous. So we told them. Hopefully they are complying, although we will see. But now they are inflating their own statistics. I think it is interesting that the President of Legal Services, Mr. McKay, earlier this year no less had this to say: ``Case statistics play an essential role in the budget request and performance plans submitted by the Legal Services Corporation to Congress each year. Therefore, the reliability of case statistics submitted by programs to Legal Services Corporation is vital to obtaining continued Federal funding for Legal Services. This type of information holds great promise for securing increased Federal funding.'' Then we find out that they have just about 50 percent less clients than was represented. It is outrageous, Mr. Chairman. We should oppose this amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, the world watches carefully the situation in Kashmir, where the Indian military attacked the Kashmiri freedom fighters to shut down the seventeen freedom movements within its borders. The effort did not go well for India, despite its claims of victory. An Indian military spokesman admitted that Indian troops were ``dying like dogs.'' The Sikhs in Punjab, Khalistan have been very concerned that this war will spread to their homeland, where they are also seeking self- determination. One of India's strategies for keeping the freedom movements from succeeding is to set the minority nations against each other. In pursuit of this divide-and-rule strategy, they have sent Sikh soldiers to fight the Kashmiris, as they have done in Nagaland. The Christians in Nagaland have been fighting for their freedom for the last 52 years. The Council of Khalistan wrote an open letter to the Sikh soldiers and officers. They called on the soldiers and officers to stop ``dying like dogs'' for the Indian government. The letter asked Sikh soldiers if they would rather die as Sikh martyrs or mercenaries for Indian oppression. It urged them to stop shooting at their fellow freedom fighters in Kashmir and join the movement to free Khalistan. The reasons why Khalistan and the other nations of South Asia should enjoy their freedom have been outlined by many of us in the past, and they have not changed. Amnesty International reports that thousands of political prisoners are being held without charge or trial. Some of them have been in illegal custody for 15 years. If India is democratic and if there is no support for the freedom movements, as India claims, then why not let the peoples of the subcontinent vote on their political status? America should support self-determination for all the nations and peoples. We should declare our support for the freedom movements and the right of self- determination and stop aid to the repressive Indian regime.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the present Smith standard gravely threatens as a practical matter the mission of churches at their most fundamental level, whether it is with regard to proselytizing or to the erection of houses of worship within communities. I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for drafting this bill, which has not been easy to do. I think he has crafted a piece of legislation which we should all support. The Religious Liberty Protection Act addresses the serious situation caused by that ``Employment Division v. Smith'' decision by restoring the general rule that State or local officials may not burden a religious exercise without demonstrating a compelling governmental interest. The legislation before us protects religious institutions by giving them their day in court if they can show that their religious freedom has suffered at the hands of a State or local government. There is a long list of cases in which the religion freedom of Americans has been, in my opinion, unconstitutionally abridged since the 1990 Smith decision. Many of these infringements touch core religious teachings and beliefs. Let me just briefly cite three examples. As a result of these so- called neutral laws of general applicability, a Catholic hospital has been denied State accreditation based on its refusal to instruct its residents on the performance of abortion in accordance with their strong religious objections. In New York, a religious mission for the homeless operated by the late Mother Teresa's order has been shut down because it was located on the second floor of a building without an elevator, thus violating a local building code. In Missouri, for example, a city there passed an ordinance prohibiting all door-to-door contacting and religious proselytizing on certain days of the week and indeed severely limiting the hours of such contact on the remaining days. These are just a few of the numerous examples of how religious freedom has been and continues to be infringed across the country. Mr. Speaker, religious liberty is a fundamental right of all Americans and must not be trampled on by insensitive bureaucracy or bad policy. Having only to show a rational basis for such policy is no protection at all. These incidents are increasing, and that is why we need to adopt the measure before us today, which will stay the hand of government from heedlessly enacting laws that substantially burden the free exercise of religion. I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to join me in supporting this much-needed legislation.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I would just observe, Mr. Chairman, we had a very interesting oversight hearing in the committee of the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) about the devastating threat of catastrophic forest fires. Do my colleagues know the Forest Service still does not have a plan despite 9 years of hearings on this topic. When this threat has been mentioned, they still to this day do not have a plan to fight catastrophic forest fires, and yet we have time and money to spend on nonsense like this. It is outrageous, Mr. Chairman. This amendment should be supported, and we should take further actions down the road.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the gentleman from Colorado's amendment here. I sit on the authorizing committee for the Forest Service. It is unbelievably mismanaged. It is horrendous in any number of areas. Yes, we need scientific research, but this is hardly scientific research, what the gentleman from Colorado so courageously proposes to delete. I understand the Senate has already done this. These absurd, wasteful studies, it makes you really wonder if this is not just the tip of the iceberg and that beneath this tip there is nine-tenths more that could be delved into. It really makes you wonder. Theoretical Perspectives of Ethnicity and Outdoor Recreation; Research Emphasis for the Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I appreciate the gentleman raising these issues.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that journalist Sukhbir Singh Osan, proprietor of Burning Punjab and a writer for several Indian newspapers, is once again being harassed by the Indian government. After he came to North America to cover the big Sikh marches in Washington, New York, and Toronto and made a speech in the United Kingdom on the human rights situation in India, he was grilled for 45 minutes by Indian intelligence officers. Now, Indian postal authorities are intercepting his mail. In a letter to the Chief Postmaster of Chandigarh, which was brought to my attention by Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, Mr. Osan noted that postal officials were handling his mail over to police constables. Several important documents were found lying on the desk of a Deputy Inspector General of Police. Mr. Osan, who is a law graduate as well as a journalist, pointed out that this action violates the Indian constitution and violates a ruling by the Indian Supreme Court in 1995. This is not the first time Mr. Osan has run afoul of the Indian state. His mail has been diverted before and he has received telephone threats for his reporting on corruption and human rights violations. Here is Indian democracy in action. If you criticize the government, your mail is seized, the government grills you, and you are threatened. In spite of all this, Mr. Osan goes on providing information about the situation in Punjab, Khalistan on his website and in his articles. His courage deserves our respect. This abuse of Mr. Osan's rights is just the latest Indian violation of the basic liberties of Sikhs in Punjab, Khalistan. In light of this pattern of tyranny, America should help bring liberty to the people living under Indian rule. Let us use our influence constructively to bring freedom, peace, and stability to this troubled region before it turns into another Kosovo. If that happens, it could pose a serious danger to the entire world, given India and Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons and India's alleged use of chemical weapons in the Kargil conflict. We must act now to keep this from happening.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, India has recently undertaken a military effort to eliminate the freedom movement in Kashmir. Supporters of freedom for all the nations of South Asia, especially neighboring Punjab, Khalistan, are concerned that if this conflict spreads, it could be a threat to other nations inside India's borders. Recently, Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, wrote a letter to the Washington Times which I am sure will be of interest to my colleagues. He pointed out that the air attacks are really an attack on the Kashmiri freedom fighters. ``India has not yet learned that people struggling for freedom cannot be suppressed by force forever,'' he wrote. Dr. Aulakh wrote that ``the reason for these conflicts is the denial of self-determination by the country that proclaims itself `the world's largest democracy.' '' This is the cause not only of the conflict in Kargil, but many of the political problems in South Asia. India spends its money to build nuclear weapons and forcibly maintain its unstable, polyglot country while half its people live below the international poverty line. To make it worse, India convened a meeting last month with China, Cuba, Serbia, and other enemies of our country ``to stop the U.S.'' Why are the overstressed taxpayers of America supporting this kind of government? Only when free and fair plebiscites on independence are held in those regions that are seeking their freedom can India legitimately claim that it is a democratic power. India promised the people of Kashmir a plebiscite in 1948. It promised the Sikhs of Punjab, Khalistan, that they would have autonomy. India claims it is democratic and that there is no support for independence in these places or in Nagaland or any of the other lands it occupies. Then why not simply have a vote? The conflict at Kargil shows that India is unstable. It is falling apart in front of our eyes. We should get on the right side of history and support the freedom movements by cutting off aid to India and by calling for free and fair plebiscites for those seeking freedom. I insert the Council of Khalistan's letter into the Record. The Washington Times, June 8, 1999. India's recent air attacks on Kashmir are really a war on the Kashmiri freedom movement. Everything India has tried to put down the freedom movement has failed, so now it has resorted to an air war against the Kashmiris. Sikhs are concerned that neighboring Punjab or Khalistan could be next. This war is designed to suppress the freedom fighters in Kashmir. India has not yet learned that people struggling for freedom cannot be suppressed by force forever. This is why more than 500,000 Indian soldiers are stationed in Kashmir. Another 500,000 are stationed in Punjab to suppress the movement to free Khalistan. India has already lost two Russian-made MiG fighters and two helicopter gunships. To suppress the freedom struggle, the Indian government has killed more than 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, more than 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1948, more than 60,000 Muslims in Kashmir since 1988 and tens of thousands of others. The reason for these conflicts is the denial of self- determination by the country that proclaims itself ``the world's largest democracy.'' America periodically conducts democratic votes on the status of Puerto Rico, with independence as an option. Canada does the same for Quebec, and Great Britain recently allowed Scotland and Wales to elect their own parliaments, moving them one step closer to a vote on independence. If self-determination is good enough for them, why shouldn't the Sikhs of Khalistan, the Muslims of Kashmir, the Christians of Nagaland and others seeking their freedom from India enjoy the same rights? The United States, Canada and Great Britain are major world powers. Not only is a free and fair plebiscite the democratic way to settle these issues, it is how great powers conduct themselves. India claims that there is no support for Khalistan. Then why not hold a free and fair vote? If India wants to be a world power and if it claims that it is democratic, then it should allow the people of Khalistan, Kashmir, Nagaland and the others seeking their freedom to hold a plebiscite under international supervision on the question of independence so that this issue can be settled in a free and fair vote. The war against the people of Kashmir shows the inherent weakness of the Indian government. Now is the best time for the people and nations of South Asia to claim their freedom. America can support this by cutting off aid to India until it lets people live in freedom and by declaring its open support for the freedom movements of South Asia. Gurmit Signh Aulakh, President, Council of Khalistan.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 263, I voted ``yes'' on the Y2K Rule, but my vote was not recorded. On the subsequent vote, I discovered that my voting was not being read by the voting machine. The card has been turned in for replacement. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, while our attention has been grabbed by Kosovo and China, the situation in India has dropped off our radar screen. While we weren't looking, India has been very busy. The Indian election campaign began with the ruling party celebrating the anniversary of its nuclear weapons tests last year. These weapons were built out of India's development budget, as the people's health and education continue to decline and the population outside of the Brahmin caste lives in abject poverty. Meanwhile, the Indian Defense Minister held a meeting looking to find ways to ``stop the U.S.,'' which he called ``vulgarly arrogant.'' Remember that we provide millions of dollars each year to help India pay its bills. How ``vulgarly arrogant.'' of us! Other countries whose representatives attended this meeting included Serbia, China, Cuba, Russia, Libya, and Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a country in which there is little respect for religious freedom. On May 20, the government placed the Jathedar of the Akal Takht, Bhai Ranjit Singh, under house arrest. Since Christmas, there has been a wave of violence against Christians. A missionary has been burned to death along with his two young sons, nuns have been raped, priests have been murdered, and Christian churches, prayer halls, and schools have been burned to the ground by allies of the Indian government. As if all that weren't enough, we have received word that Indian intelligence officers interrogated a journalist named Sikhbir Singh Osan for 45 minutes. For him to have been grilled and harassed by police would have been bad enough, but he was harassed by intelligence officers after he returned from the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., where he covered the recent Sikh 300th anniversary marches and gave a speech on the persecution of Christians. The government of India is intolerant and anti-American. They do not allow freedom of religion or, apparently, of the press. I am proud to have joined several of my colleagues of both parties in co-sponsoring a resolution that calls for a free and fair plebiscite in Punjab, Khalistan on the question of independence. Freedom is America's mission. By taking steps against the anti-American government of India, we can help promote and extend the blessings of liberty to another corner of the world. We must get started.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) for doing what is right. No government has the right, for heaven's sakes, to take away one's God given right to defend himself and his family. Why should we think the District of Columbia Council have that right. It is wrong for them to do that. It is right for people to be able to protect themselves. The District of Columbia is the only jurisdiction from the U.S. that prohibits keeping firearms in an operable condition at home for defense against criminal attack. The right for people to be secure in their homes is an ages old right, affirmed in law and court decisions, but rejected in D.C. This jurisdiction is a disaster. It still has one of the highest crime rates in the country. Crime generally has dropped over the entire country due to demographic trends. We should vote for the gentleman's amendment and reaffirm even in the District of Columbia people's God given rights to defend themselves and their families with a firearm.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, in 1998, there were 648 million passenger enplanements. So this is not some theoretical esoteric subject that most people have no knowledge of. We all know what it is like to fly today. We all know there are tremendous problems with it, problems that are developing because of the increased usage of air transportation. It is a good thing that this is increasing, but we need to keep up with the development of our capacity in order to handle it. In 1998, 23 percent of major air carrier flights were delayed. Everyone has experienced that kind of a delay. Although aircraft technology continues to improve, the time to fly between several major cities has increased over the past 10 years simply due to congestion. To account for delays, airlines have increased scheduled flight times on nearly 75 percent of the 200 highest volume domestic routes. I might add, we have all experienced that situation where we take off late because the destination airport is exercising control and will not let us take off because they have got too much traffic. We have also been in the air where we circle around and around and around waiting for the ability to land. American Airlines, just to take one airline, has estimated that, by the year 2014, it expects delays to increase by a factor of 3, or 300 percent, bringing its hub and spoke systems to its knees. Mr. Chairman, this is not just American Airlines. This will be the case more or less to the same extent with all of the other major airlines. So what are we going to do about it now to avoid a crisis in the future? We are going to let local airports increase the fee they charge on tickets in order to improve their airports. What is the matter with that? That is real local control. It is ridiculous to call this a tax increase, in my humble opinion. Now, good friends like the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and others feel differently. I respect their reasoning. I just disagree with them. When a local jurisdiction imposes a new fee, I do not call it a Federal tax. Let me just quote, if I may, now as an illustration of what happens when we increase the fee. It does not mean automatically everybody pays a little more, because there is competition. When we allow these airports to charge those fees, they add new gates. When they add new gates, they get new airlines coming in. When new airlines come in, there is competition, and the price of the ticket drops. Just consider what happened to take BWI, Baltimore Washington International Airport around here. They used their passenger facility charge to build gates. Southwest Airlines moved into those gates, both in Providence and at BWI, and they commenced service between Providence and BWI. The Department of Transportation analysis showed that the average one-way fare plummeted from $181 to $53, a drop of 71 percent. Passenger traffic for the 3-month period increased by 884 percent. So obviously the public liked it. Mr. Chairman, a passenger is much better off paying a PFC, a passenger facilities charge, on top of a $53 fare rather than paying $181 without a PFC. So in many cases, these PFC charges actually result in a great net reduction in cost to the consumer. The consumer should support this. For that reason, I oppose the Graham amendment and urge all of my colleagues to support the principle of local control and of competition and of improvement in our airport facilities. Oppose this amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I am in disagreement with some colleagues that oftentimes I am in agreement with, but I think, I really think, this amendment is the wrong way to go. Anyone who flies knows how inconvenient air travel is becoming, the tremendously long waits that people are experiencing, the crowded conditions one is in, the canceled flights that happen all of a sudden. One knows that one is having traffic control difficulty because the plane cannot land at the destination airport. All of these things are due to the tremendous increase in congestion at our airports. There is going to be a 10 percent annual increase in passenger miles from now on each year way into the future. We have to get ahead of the game. We have to build up our infrastructure in this manner. We are only asking to spend the money that is in the trust fund to do that. This amendment not only puts it all on budget again, but cuts off the general fund support for vitally needed things like the Doppler radar and other things. For that reason and others I would strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and let us move forward on the bill.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, today Majority Whip Tom DeLay and I are joining the chorus of calls in Congress for campaign finance reform because we agree that the current system is broken. There is something fundamentally wrong with the way political campaigns in America today are financed. However, the reforms encompassed in the bill we are introducing today take a very different direction than most bills that have been introduced on campaign finance thus far. These bills share a common thread--they call for more government regulation into federal campaigns. I believe that the proposals that call for greater regulation of our campaign finance system misdiagnose the problem. I submit that what has caused our failed campaign finance system is the regulation itself. If we want to deal with the real, underlying problem, we need to undo the regulations. The Doolittle-DeLay approach is the proper remedy to what ails our campaign finance system in that it removes the regulations. Moreover, and no less important, is that this approach is consistent with the Constitution because it restores our first amendment right to engage in political speech. In 1974, in the wake of Watergate, Congress threw a regulatory web over the campaign finance system, a system that had gone largely unregulated throughout our nation's history. Within two years of the reform's passage, the Supreme Court, in Buckley versus Valeo, struck down major parts of the new regulatory scheme on first amendment grounds. Since that time, the campaign finance regulators have blamed every problem involving campaign financing on the Court's decision. There are those of us, however, who believe the problem is not that which the Court struck down, but rather that which was left intact, the present campaign finance law. The regulators would do well to remember that it was not the Supreme Court that put unreasonably low limits on how much individuals and groups could contribute to campaigns while failing to index those limits for inflation. It was not the Supreme Court that ran roughshod over the first amendment rights of office-seekers and other citizens. And it was not the Supreme Court that stacked the deck against challengers, locking in incumbents at an unprecedented rate. No, the problem is not that the Court invalidated part of the regulators; grand scheme; the problem is that too much of their scheme remains intact. I believe it is time we declare ``the emperor has no clothes.'' It's time to dispel the myths perpetuated by the architects of today's failed campaign finance scheme. And while the regulators devise new such schemes on how to limit participation in elections and eliminate money from campaigns, we should look at the real problems that have been caused by their regulatory approach to reform. Today's campaign finance system requires current and prospective office-holders to spend too much time raising money and not enough time governing and debating issues. The present system has also failed to make elections more competitive and allows millionaires to purchase congressional seats. While a millionaire can write a check for whatever amount he or she wants to their election campaign, everyone else is forced to live under the same hard dollar limits that were put in place in 1974, which have not even been adjusted for inflation. Today's system hurts voters in our republic by forcing more contributors and political activists to operate outside of the system where they are unaccountable and, consequently, less responsible. The big government reformers agree with me on this point, but their solution, of course, is more regulation. Beyond being unconstitutional, more regulation, such as banning soft money and limiting issue ads (ala Shays-Meehan), will only make the system worse. I don't often agree with my hometown newspaper, the Sacramento Bee, but last year they put out an editorial on CFR which I agreed with on many points. Speaking about the Shays-Meehan bill they said: ``It centers on two big wrong- headed reforms: prohibiting national political parties from collecting or using ``soft-money'' contributions, and outlawing independent political advertising that identifies candidates within 60 days of a federal election. That means the law would prohibit issue campaigning at precisely the time when voters are finally interested in listening-- hardly congruent with free speech. Since that kind of restriction is likely to be tossed by the courts as a violation of constitutional free speech guarantees, the net effect of the changes will be to weaken political parties while making the less accountable ``independent expenditure groups'' kings of the campaign landscape. I couldn't agree more. Because as long as we have a shred of a Constitution left, individuals will have the ability to act independently and spend as much as they have want on political causes. So, the net result of a Shays-Meehan bill would be to push political spending even farther away from the responsible candidate-centered campaign. These are the problems we face today. And before we decide which reforms should be implemented, we need to decide where we want to go, and what kind of new system we wish to create. To me, the answer is simple. Our goal should be a system that encourages political speech, and promotes freedom and a more informed electorate. We should strive for a system in which any American citizen can compete for and win elective office; a system that is consistent with the Constitution by allowing voters to contribute freely to the candidate of their choice. By removing the limits on contributions, scrapping the failed presidential finance system, and providing full and immediate disclosure, the Citizen Legislature and Political Freedom Act would dramatically move us toward a desirable, constitutional, and workable campaign finance system.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, India has once again shown true nature of its democracy by grilling a reporter who visited the United States. Journalist Sukhbir Singh Osan has exposed the corruption and the atrocities of the Indian government in newspapers and through his website, Burning Punjab. He visited the United States, Canada, and Great Britain to cover the Sikh 300th anniversary marches and speak on human rights. He met with my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Burton, and with a minister in the Canadian government. Their pictures appear on his website. Mr. Osan returned to his home in Chandigarh before Indian intelligence officers showed up at his house to interrogate him for 45 minutes, claiming they were acting on instructions from the central government in New Delhi. This is not the first time the Indian government has gone after Mr. Osan. He has received anonymous threats and has been denied a law degree that he worked hard to earn because he had written news stories that the Indian government didn't like. Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, brought this to my attention. I understand that Dr. Aulakh has notified the Committee to Protect Journalists in New York of Mr. Osan's mistreatment. What happened to Mr. Osan is not just an isolated incident. Other reporters have been threatened for reporting stories critical of the Indian government. Clearly, there is no press freedom in India despite its loud and frequent boasts that it is ``the world's largest democracy.'' Does a democratic country harass reporters for covering stories that the government doesn't like? Would a democratic country incite 17 freedom movements within its borders? India is a democracy only for the Brahmin ruling class. It is also anti-American, working with such models of democracy as China, Libya, and Cuba to undermine U.S. foreign policy. It approached China and Russia trying to build a triangular ``security alliance'' against America. We should treat India as we do other violators of religious freedom. That will help to end the kind of abuse that Mr. Osan and his fellow Sikhs suffer and bring real freedom to all the nations and peoples living within India's Borders. I am placing the Burning Punjab story on Mr. Osan's harassment into the Record for the information of my colleagues. Intelligence Agencies Grill Sukhbir Singh Osan Chandigarh.--True to their anti-Sikh stance, the Indian Intelligence Agencies have again started harassment of innocents. Punjab based journalist, Sukhbir Singh Osan, who recently visited Unites States, Canada and United Kingdom for the purpose of participating in a human right convention to read a paper on the subject ``Recent attacks on Christian community in India'' and covering the 300 year celebrations of the Khalsa community was grilled by the intelligence sleuths for more than forty-five minutes at his residence on May 11. When Mr. Osan asked the DSP [Intelligence Bureau] as to why he was questioning him about his visits abroad, the said DSP replied, ``Delhi wants to know all about it.'' When again asked whether there were any written instructions, he replied that ``we have specific instructions from Delhi''. However, nothing in writing was given to Mr. Osan.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I thank the gentleman. I would just observe the motto of the University of California is lifted from the Bible, ``Let there be light.'' We intend to shine as much light as we can so that, as the Bible says, ``The truth shall make us free.'' With that, I would like to now acknowledge our distinguished colleague from Florida (Mr. Weldon) who will share insights with us and perhaps will explain why Al Gore was not allowed to make the taxpayers fund his pet project of raiding money from NASA to show constant images of the earth from outer space.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) for his participation tonight. I encourage everybody to read ``Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit.'' We will be back for the next chapter as we examine further the dangerous and extreme and outrageous and, as my colleague said, goofy views of the Vice President of the United States, Mr. Al Gore.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I am going to yield here in just a second to our good colleague from Florida, but just to observe, to corroborate what you said, the very thing Mr. Gore claims to support, the environment, his policies are actually hurting. It is the same thing in the area of national forests. I said earlier we have more standing timber than at any time in the 20th century. We also have the worst forest health than any time in the 20th century. Great over growth in the forests, huge amounts of dead and dying trees, all brought about by the horrific forest management policies of the Clinton/Gore administration catering to these sorts of extreme, bizarre, goofy views, and I yield now to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) for his comments.