John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to reintroduce the English Language Amendment to the Constitution in the 107th Congress. I remain convinced that this nation of immigrants must once again be united under a common tongue. The notion that our nation's government must function in multiple tongues may appear to be compassionate. Yet recent events once again demonstrate that this apparently compassionate solution is simply not helping the people it may have been intended to help. The New York Times carried an urgent editorial on January 1st of this year, entitled ``Bungled Ballots in Chinatown.'' The Times noted that ``Chinese-language ballots were translated incorrectly. The `Democratic' label was translated as `Republican' and `Republican' was rendered `Democratic' for state races.'' In addition, the Chinese instructions for choosing State Supreme Court justices were also flawed. The English instruction read ``Vote for any THREE'' candidates while the Chinese version asked voters to ``Vote for any FIVE.'' How could mistakes like this happen? A quick overview of a manual for prospective professional translators, The Translator's Handbook by Moffey Sofer, suggests that correctly interpreting between two languages is more difficult than some may suppose. There is variation within every language, as anyone who has compared American English with British English knows all too well. In the case of Chinese, the language is presently written in both traditional and simplified characters and varies between the mainland and Taiwan. Sofer also notes that there are more problems translating between Spanish and English than between other languages and English because: [T]here is no single variety of Spanish. There are major differences between the Spanish of Mexico, Central America, northern South America and [s]outhern South America, not to mention such places as Puerto Rico and . . . Spain. Cuban Spanish, Puerto Rican Spanish, Chicano Spanish and additional forms of Spanish all exist within the borders of the United States, creating vast potential for cross-cultural confusion. Thus, the English word ``eyeglasses'' must be translated as anteojos for one Hispanic community in the U.S., for another as gafas, while a third group prefers espejuelos and still another group refers to eyeglasses as lentes. Spanish and Chinese aren't the only languages which create translation challenges. The Translators Handbook also notes that ``there are several spoken Arabic dialects which are not always mutually intelligible, such as Syrian and Egyptian and . . . even the official written Arabic has different terms and uses in different Arab countries.'' In fact, translation difficulties are part of the dispute in the Middle East. A July 24, 1999 letter to the New York Times notes that UN Resolution 242 reads in English that Israel is to return unspecified ``territory'' while the French version refers to ``the territory'' (le territorire). These difficulties of translation underscore the practical problems inherent to multilingual government. Millions of official documents multiplied by a multitude of language translations mean a potential for massive errors. Without an official language, there would be no legal standard to decide among competing translations of a government document in which the English version said one thing while the translation said something altogether different. My colleagues and I can spend hours negotiating over the exact wording of one phrase in one piece of legislation. We are all aware that wording matters. Mr. Speaker, these practical problems are about to multiply exponentially, thanks to President Clinton's Executive Order 13166. Executive Order 13166 received little media coverage when it was signed on August 11th, the last Friday before the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles. Executive Order 13166 will soon be major news with incalculable financial impact on every state, city and town. Executive Order 13166 is based on belief that to provide services solely in English could ``discriminate on the basis of national origin.'' Thus Clinton Executive Order 13166, as interpreted by the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Justice, requires every recipient of federal funds, including ``a federally assisted zoo or theater . . . to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful opportunities for access'' by Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals. How will Executive Order 13166 be enforced? The Maine Medical Center, based in Portland, now has nine official tongues and counting, thanks to a settlement with the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights. The Maine Medical Center is now required to post a ``Interpreter Availability Sign'' to be ``printed at least in English, Farsi, Khmer, Russian, Serbo-Croatian (Cyrillic and Roman alphabets), Somali, Spanish and Vietnamese.'' In addition, hospital personnel must be ``inform[ed] that MMC's policy of providing in-person and telephone interpreter services to LEP (Limited English Proficient] persons is not limited to languages in which [the Interpreter Availability Sign] and other documents are printed.'' In other words, anyone who arrives at the front desk of the Maine Medical Center now has the right to insist on a translation into any language in the world. Mr. Speaker, allow me to turn next to the question of bilingual education, which the voters of my state abolished in June of 1998. Thanks to the passage of Proposition 227, more California children are learning English and getting ready to take their rightful place in American society. On August 20, 2000 the New York Times carried a story in its front page entitled: ``Increase in Test Scores Counters Dire Forecasts for Bilingual Ban.'' The story began: Two years after Californians voted to end bilingual education and force a million Spanish-speaking students to immerse themselves in English . . . those students are improving in reading and other subjects at often striking rates, according to standardized test scores released this week. . . . The results are remarkable given predictions that scores of Spanish-speaking students would plummet. Consider the experience of Ken Noonan, who . . . founded the California Association of Bilingual Educators 30 years ago . . . [he] warned in 1998 that children newly arrived from Mexico and Central America would stop coming to school if they were not gradually weaned off Spanish in traditional bilingual classes. Now, he says he was wrong. ``I thought it would hurt kids,'' Mr. Noonan said of the ballot initiative, which was called Proposition 227. ``The exact reverse occurred, totally unexpected by me. The kids began to learn--not pick up, but learn--formal English, oral and written, far more quickly than I ever thought they would.'' There was more good news. While 29% of the state's limited English proficient students were enrolled in bilingual education programs prior to the passage of Prop. 227, the percentage dropped to 12% after the proposition was implemented. ``Even in the classrooms that had been designated as bilingual . . . teachers reveled that . . . their students were receiving much less literacy instruction in their primary language.'' All this means that more California children of immigrants are being taught English. And test scores show they are learning it. Especially in the lower elementary grades, students who arrived at school speaking little or no English have made dramatic improvement in reading and mathematics. Mr. Speaker, these facts support making English America's official language. Let me now turn to the underlying message of this legislation. Opponents of official English claim legislation of this sort sends the wrong message to Hispanic Americans. They are wrong, as Hispanic Americans from all walks of life are quick to reply. The real message underlying this legislation was well-expressed by Everett Alvarez, Jr., who led the Republican Convention in the Pledge of Allegiance earlier this year. Everett Alvarez was the first American pilot shot down in Vietnam. Everett Alvarez is also a proud American of Hispanic descent. In his book, Code of Conduct, Alvarez said, ``I didn't spend eight-and-one- half years of my life as a prisoner of war because I was Hispanic. I didn't get beat up because I was Hispanic. I was an American fighting man.'' Alvarez also had this to say about bilingual education: I am proud of being living proof that America is a country in which a person can overcome economic disadvantages and ethnic stereotypes. . . . I believe that education is the key to a successful and happy life in an open society. With that in mind, I oppose the movement to make Spanish (or any other foreign tongue) a second coequal language in American schools. This is a hindrance rather than a help to the young people who will eventually have to make their way in an English- speaking society. Ernesto Ortiz, a South Texas ranch hand echoed this view. As quoted by John Silber, in his book Straight Shooting: ``My children learn in Spanish in school so they can grow up to be busboys and waiters. I teach them in English at home so they can grow up to be doctors and lawyers.'' Alvarez and Ortiz are joined by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., who so eloquently spoke in his book, The Disuniting of America, of how: ``a common language is a necessary bond of national cohesion in so heterogeneous a nation as America. . . . [I]nstitutionalized bilingualism remains another source of the fragmentation of America, another threat to the dream of `one people.' '' The vision which underlies my English Language Amendment is the uniquely American vision of a nation of immigrants united by a common tongue. This is not only the popular position--official English has won handily in my home state of California--is also the right position. If passed by the Congress and ratified by the states, my English Language Amendment will provide permanent protection from the divisions and dangers of mandatory multilingualism. It is for this reason that I hope Congress will choose this particular approach, though it is a longer and harder road than simple legislation. This nation of immigrants needs a common tongue. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the English Language Amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2594) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to contract with the Mancos Water Conservancy District to use the Mancos Project facilities for impounding, storage, diverting, and carriage of nonproject water for the purpose of irrigation, domestic, municipal, industrial, and any other beneficial purposes.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts with the Mancos Water Conservancy District and its member unit contractors to transfer nonproject water for any beneficial purpose, up to the extent of any excess capacity. Legislation such as this has passed Congress on several occasions since the Bureau of Reclamation does not have the authority to move nonproject water administratively, unless it is for irrigation purposes. The increased growth and resulting need to use water facilities more efficiently in the western United States have been the basis for Congress to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into these contracts. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1972) to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to the town of Dolores, Colorado, the current site of the Joe Rowell Park.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1972 was introduced by Senator Allard. This legislation would convey approximately 25 acres of Forest Service land to the town of Dolores, Colorado, for use as a park. The property has been used by the town of Dolores as a park under permit from the Forest Service. Mr. Speaker, S. 1972 guarantees the reversion of the property back to the United States if the town attempts to transfer the title or permit the property to be used for any other purpose. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support S. 1972. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the Council of Khalistan held its international convention in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The Council of Khalistan leads the peaceful struggle to liberate the Sikh homeland, Punjab, Khalistan. I would like to congratulate the Council on a very successful convention. Delegates came from all around the United States, Canada, and even as far away as Great Britain. They engaged in extensive discussion of plans to liberate Khalistan, and they passed resolutions for independence, human rights, and self-determination. The convention opened on October 7, which is the anniversary of Khalistan's declaration of independence from India. Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, who is the President of the Council of Khalistan, has been a tireless advocate for his people and has made himself a well-known presence in the halls of Congress by his persistence over the last thirteen years or so. He also fights for human rights of Christians, Muslims, and anyone else who is being oppressed by India. His tireless efforts have helped to keep this issue alive, and I salute him for this work. His struggle merits our support. Mr. Speaker, I submit the Council of Khalistan's press release on its convention for the Record. [Council of Khalistan, Press Release, Oct. 10, 2000] Council International Convention Very Successful--Delegates Very Enthusiastic and Upbeat Free Khalistan Essential for Survival of Sikh Nation Washington, D.C., October 10, 2000--The annual convention of the Council of Khalistan, held this weekend in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, was very successful. Delegates came from all over the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The delegates were very enthusiastic and their spirit was very upbeat (charhdi kala). They expressed appreciation for the work of the Council of Khalistan, the government pro tempore of Khalistan, the Sikh homeland that was declared independent on October 7, 1987. Very candid discussion was held concerning the Sikh Nation and its struggle for independence. The delegates agreed that the liberation of Khalistan is essential for the survival of the Sikh Nation. The delegates agreed to contribute one (1) percent of their annual incomes to the Washington office and to ask others to do the same. Delegates passed resolutions calling for the liberation of the Sikh homeland, Khalistan, through a Shantmai Morcha (peaceful agitation), for self-determination, demanding the release of political prisoners in Punjab, calling for the formation of a Khalsa Raj Party in Punjab, condemning the Sikh Youth of America for inviting Simranjit Singh Mann to their convention, and many others. The delegates decided that next year's convention will be held on Columbus Day weekend, 2001, in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, expressed satisfaction at the success of the convention. ``I would like to thank everyone who helped to make this convention so successful,'' he said, ``especially the Fort Lauderdale Gurdwara and Sardar Manmohan Singh Randhawa, who took all the reservations and helped to organize the convention. The success of this convention and the fact that people came from great distances to be there send a strong message to the Indian government that Sikhs demand an independent, sovereign Khalistan,'' he said. Other resolutions that were passed at the conventions included resolutions demanding that human-rights groups be allowed to operate in Punjab, where they have not been allowed since 1978, nominating Dr. Aulakh for the Nobel Peace Prize, naming Dr. Aulakh Khalistan Man of the Year 2000, calling on all Gurdwaras to support the freedom struggle, demanding leaders with vision, appreciating the Council of Khalistan, to raise money for the Council's office, and urging Sikhs and youth to get involved in the political process. A committee was formed to find new leadership if anything should happen to Dr. Aulakh and also support and advise the Council of Khalistan in its effort to expedite the liberation of Khalistan. ``It is appropriate that the convention opened on the anniversary of Khalistan's declaration of independence,'' Dr. Aulakh said. He noted that Sikhs ruled Punjab until 1849 when the British forcibly annexed it into British India. No Sikh representative has ever signed the Indian constitution. Thousands of Sikhs languish in prisons without charge or trial, according to Amnesty International. Between 1993 and 1994, 50,000 Sikhs were made to disappear by Indian forces. More than 250,000 Sikhs have been killed since 1984. Over 200,000 Christians have been killed since 1947 and over 70,000 Kashmiri Muslims have been killed since 1988. In March, during President Clinton's visit to India, the Indian government murdered 35 Sikhs in the village of Chithi Singhpora, Kashmir. Two independent investigations and an Amnesty International report have confirmed the government's responsibility. The Indian Supreme Court described the situation in Punjab as ``worse than a genocide.'' ``India is on the verge of disintegration,'' said Dr. Aulakh. ``Kashmir is going to be free. Khalistan will also be free during this decade, by the grace of Guru. Guru gave sovereignty to the Sikh Nation,'' he said. ``This convention was a step forward in that effort.''

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker. This issue is about big payoffs, not big oil. In fact, it is about the biggest payoffs ever made and accepted by Federal bureaucrats, indeed, over $750,000 already. This resolution is about our ability as Members of Congress to ask questions of and to get answers from those who made the big payoffs, and those who accepted them. It is that simple. Members should know that there was a written agreement to funnel $4 million to two Federal employees. Make no mistake, those who oppose this resolution are sanctioning the ability of people to hide the facts about what goes on in big government agencies from the people and from congressional committees. This resolution is about holding those who made and accepted these big payoffs to the same standard we would hold any corporation if it made huge payments to Federal workers. So do not fall for the smoke screen. Big payments to Federal Government workers are wrong. Support the resolution.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I noticed two recent articles that underline the religious tyranny in India. One was in the New York Times and the other was in the Washington Times. Together, they show that for minorities, the promise of Indian secularism and religious freedom is a mirage. The RSS, a militant Hindu nationalist organization, wants to ban foreign churches from India. It wants to reconvert everybody who converted from Hinduism to any other religion, such as Christianity or Islam. The RSS published a booklet encouraging people to file false criminal cases against Christians and members of other minority religions. They are moving ahead with plans to build a Hindu temple on the site of a very revered mosque. Is this how they practice secularism and religious tolerance in India? The ruling BJP is under the umbrella of the RSS. In fact, Prime Minister Vajpayee just about a month ago told an audience that he will ``always'' be a part of the RSS. Shiv Sena, a militant coalition partner of the BJP, is also part of the RSS. Since Christmas 1998, Christians have been subjected to church burnings, attacks on Christian schools and prayer halls, nuns being raped, priests being murdered, the burning murder of a missionary and his two little sons, and so many other atrocities that I have lost trace of them. Two independent investigations show that 35 Sikhs were massacred in Chithi Singhpora while the President was visiting in March. Now these disturbing articles have come to light. How far will this pattern of religious hostility go on before we do something to stop it? We should declare India a violator of religious rights. In light of that, we should cut U.S. aid to India. Why should the American taxpayer be forced to pay taxes to support a government that engages in such policies? We should also put ourselves on record in support of self- determination for Khalistan, Kashmir, Nagalim, and the other minority nations living under Indian rule. It is our responsibility to do what we can to support freedom. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following New York Times article into the Record for the information of my colleagues and the American people. A Camp Meeting Celebrates the Vision of a Hindu India By Celia W. Dugger AGRA, India, Oct. 15--Dust rose in dervishes across the dun-colored parade ground here, swirling around the legs of almost 60,000 uniformed men and boys from more than 7,000 villages. Those foot soldiers in the quest for a Hindu nation stood in ruler-straight lines that stretched as far as the eye could see. They had come to a three-day camp to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Rashtriya Swayamservak Sangh, or the National Volunteers Association. It is a powerful disciplined and, some believe, dangerously divisive organization that has given rise to a raft of affiliated groups, including the Bharatiya Janata party that now leads India's coalition government. After an hour of toe touches, deep knee bends and push-ups, the volunteers sat cross-legged in the dirt and lay down their long bamboo staffs to listen raptly to their leader, K.S. Sudarashan. He inspired them with a vision of India as an ancient and tolerant Hindu nation, but warned that the country was threatened from within by Christian churches that he described as foreign dominated and funded. Although Christians have lived in India for 2,000 years and make up only 2 percent of its one billion people, he raised the specter of Christian conversions diminishing the dominance of Hindus and leading to secessionist movements. He criticized Christian and Muslim Indians who have refused, in his eyes, to embrace their Hindu heritage. He called on Christians to sever links with ``foreign'' churches and set up a Church of India. And he condemned Roman Catholic missionaries who believe that only their path leads to salvation. ``How can we allow such people to work here?'' he asked from his podium high above the ground. A larger-than-life likeness of the Hindu god Krishna loomed behind him. Fifty-three years after India gained its independence from British rule, Mr. Sudarshan's movement is still agitating for a redefinition of the In contrast, the Hindu nationalist ideology defines India as a Hindu nation whose people share a common geography, culture and ancestry. In this view, Muslims and Christians were converted from Hinduism and need to be reintegrated into the Hindu mainstream--a theme first sounded in the 1920's and articulated by Mr. Sudarshan today. After the closing ceremony, thousands of volunteers, all dressed in paramilitary-style khaki shorts, white shirts and black caps, rushed from their rigid grid on the field toward the dignitaries sitting on red velvet couches in the blazing sun. A group of them surrounded Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani, who started in the R.S.S., moved to the Bharatiya Janata party, and is now believed to be in line to inherit the mantle of leadership from Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, who joined the R.S.S. back in the 1940's. As orders blared from a tower of loudspeakers, Mr. Advani joined the rows of men in making the movement's salute (hand held stiffly across the chest, palm down) on the count of one, lowering his head on two and dropping his arm on three. His presence here was another tantalizing clue in one of the country's favorite parlor games: Are the R.S.S. and the B.J.P.--the political party that is part of the Sangh Parivar, or R.S.S. family--hand in glove or at each other's throats? The answer seems to be a little of both. There is a natural tension between them, Mr. Sudarshan's movement, which is striving to build a Hindu nation from the grass roots up, is purist in its ideology. The ruling party, which is striving for political power, has set aside many of its Hindu nationalist planks to win the support of regional parties with secular outlooks. It is no longer pushing for the construction of a Hindu temple on the site of a demolished 16th-century mosque in Ayodhya, for example. But the movement and the governing party also need each other. The party relies on the movement's vast network of committed volunteers at election time. And the movement enjoys a measure of political influence because of its close ties to the party. ``The relationship is a bit like that between the Christian Coalition and the Republican Party,'' said Ashutosh Varshney, a political scientist at Notre Dame and an expert on India. More than half a million boys and men attend the daily meetings of the R.S.S. in 45,000 local branches all over India. The group's appeal is part Boy Scouts, part crusaders. Many become volunteers for the daily physical exercise, sports and camaraderie, but were later fired by the association's idea of nationhood. The camp here in Agra was an organization feat, subdivided into many smaller neighborhoods where sanitation, roads, electricity and cooking facilities had all been installed by the association. At 4:30 this morning, a bugle woke the swayamsevaks, or volunteers, while a full moon still dangled over the grounds. By 6 a.m., as dawn broke and a pinkish-orange orb of sun rose, they had lined up for exercise drills. Afterward, they sang a song calling on the volunteers to awaken to threats from India's enemies and traitors. The high-pitched voices of young boys cut through the low hum of the men's singing. Many of those here were new recruits. Rajkumar Gupta, 13, could explain little of the group's ideology. He studies in a school run by an affiliate of the association. He and the 160 students in the school had come with their teachers ``because the school told us to.'' Abhinay Kumar Sharma, 15, was attending his second camp and he had learned some of the association's thinking. ``The Sangh is here to fight social evils, for example, conversions to Christianity,'' he said. ``This is a Hindu nation and conversions are divisive and this will lead to the division of the country.'' Lal Singh, a 65-year-old farmer, echoed the same theme, saying: ``Conversion is wrong. This is against our culture. And in these other religions, this sense of humanity and service to man is not there, while it is in our religion.'' Yashpal Singh Nayak, 26, a traveling perfume salesman, worried that extended families are breaking down into nuclear families and that women are leaving their faces unveiled in front of elders and males. ``If it continues like this,'' he said, ``it will be a serious threat to Indian culture.''

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for organizing this special order. Ron is obviously someone who is looked upon very favorably here in the House and who is a friend to all. And in the frenetic pace that we have, we do not take time to stop and pause upon the contributions of any given individual until the time of his or her retirement. It is unfortunate that it is that way, but at least we do have this occasion to pause for that moment, and many things have been said. Ron has a very interesting life and a number of significant accomplishments. I just want to provide just two or three brief snapshots of my encounters with Ron. When I was a brand-new Member here, 10 years ago, I would take the Metro in; and so if we stayed late at night, although I could have taken the Metro back out, Ron lived out near us, and he was kind enough to give me a ride. So he introduced me to an interesting way of getting home. But the best way, and I always take it whenever I am driving, and that is you go down 395 South. You get off at Maine Avenue. You go past the Jefferson and Vietnam Veterans and Lincoln Memorials right along the Potomac River. There are quite a few little turns you have to know how to make, but you end up going up over the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge looking past the Kennedy Center, and you are on 66 West. And, Ron, every time I go that way I have you to thank for that. I think of you. I think of you every single time. I do think of you teaching me how to get home that way. We have another thing that is somewhat unusual. When we were not back in our districts and happened to be here for the weekend, Ron and I were members of the same congregation, the Oakton Ward of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And Ron served for many days for the instructor of priesthood group. I might add Orrin and Elaine Hatch are members of that ward. And Jean, of course. Ron and Jean's daughter Lisa. We miss them, I must say, as they have been wrapping up their affairs and making the transition completely back to California. They have moved back with their family, and we do not see Ron so much in that capacity, but we did see him there this last Sunday. Anyway, I treasure those memories. Lastly, but not least and most directly related to our legislative life, I had the privilege of working with Ron on a very important issue to California, the subject of water and specifically, the subject of cow fed. Ron is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and as we all know, there is an appropriations subcommittee that handles the money to be spent for each of the different policy committees. The policy subcommittee that I chair is the Subcommittee on Water and Power. And so we worked rather closely together on this very contentious issue of water, and that is really not resolved as of this moment and will be taken up in the next Congress. But I do want to say this, rather than simply doing whatever he liked as the appropriations chairman, because frankly, if that power is used in that fashion, legislating on appropriations bills can occur and can occur contrary to whatever the policy committee would like to have happen. I do not think that that is appropriate, but it occasionally happens around here. It did not happen with Ron and his subcommittee, and I really value, Ron, how closely you worked with us and the authorizers to try to reach an accommodation on that. You and I and our committees were together, but not all the parties in this process were, and so it has not worked out yet; but you certainly gave it the maximum effort. I am convinced the foundation that we laid will eventually be built upon to resolve this problem. Lastly, the last personal snapshot, as you heard what a great golfer Ron is, and I think he is one of the best in the House. But he and his wife also love games, board games, and we had a couple of delightful evenings over the years enjoying those experiences together as couples. So I want to say thank you. We will miss you, and Godspeed in your new endeavors.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard).

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize and honor the contributions my good friend, R. Douglas Simmons, has made to one of America's most respected service institutions, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). On October 27 of this year, Doug will mark 50 years of continuous registration in the Boy Scouts organization. This lengthy record of service both as a youth participant and as an adult leader merits the recognition and commendation of this distinguished body. First of all, I wish to say a few words about the Boy Scouts of America itself. Few other organizations have as admirable a record of doing good as does the BSA. For ninety years, Boy Scouts have been symbols of everything that is right with America's youth. In fact, in the eyes of many, the faithful Boy Scout has come to embody the virtues of personal integrity and community service. Scouting is a program that educates young men in countless fields of study, trains them to master practical skills, instills in them a sense of civic duty, encourages them to develop commitment to their faith and country, and teaches them to lead a life of service to others. Boy Scouts learn and practice the principles of cooperation and teamwork. They take an active role in setting goals, making decisions, and executing plans for themselves and for the group. Whether it be in today's businesses, government institutions, schools, or families, these leadership skills are clearly in demand. Perhaps the BSA's most valuable role in today's society is that it provides boys with positive male role models. In our increasingly fatherless society, it is now more important than ever for young men to have honorable mentors that they can look to for example, instruction, counsel, and companionship. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say that my friend, Doug Simmons, has been a part of BSA's sterling legacy for the past 50 years. His scouting career began when he registered as an eight-year-old Cub Scout on October 27, 1950. He remained active in Scouting throughout his youth, eventually advancing to the rank of Eagle Scout and participating in the Order of the Arrow. In each of his Scout troops and Explorer posts, Doug held leadership positions. Perhaps the culmination of his experience as a Boy Scout was when he attended the National Scout Jamboree. To his credit, Doug has continued his involvement in Scouting as an adult leader. His ongoing leadership training includes Bear Paw and Wood Badge courses and time at Philmont Scout Ranch. He has held numerous positions at almost every level of Scouting. Among the troop level positions he has filled are scoutmaster, troop committee chairman, unit commissioner, and institutional representative. At the district level, Doug Simmons has been Camporee chairman, and he has served on the camping committee. At the council level, he has been a member of the Explorer Advisory Council and the Bear Paw training staff. Furthermore, he has served in Order of the Arrow leadership and as a merit badge counselor. For his dedication to Scouting, Doug Simmons has received numerous awards, including the Scouters Key, the Scouters Training Award, the Silver Bear, and the Silver Beaver. In addition to his direct involvement in Scouting, Doug has worked with the young men in his church while serving in various ecclesiastical offices. Among these positions have been bishop, bishop's counselor and deacon quorum advisor. Mr. Speaker, our nation needs more citizens who are willing to stand up for the values that have made America great. We need more individuals who are dedicated to improving the lives and circumstances of the people around them. We need more of our young people to participate in character-building and community-building activities. We need more responsible adults to take an active role in caring for and guiding the youth of this country. In short, we need more people like Doug Simmons. I salute both Doug and the institution he loves so dearly, The Boy Scouts of America. As he now commemorates his 50 years of involvement with the Boy Scouts of America, let us honor all Doug Simmons' contributions to advancing the ideals of that great organization.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, today, I stand to recognize an outstanding public servant in my district. She is a woman who has dedicated her life to not only raising her own four children, but also teaching and nurturing many small children in her community. I wish to recognize my good personal friend Gwen Sessions who was recently named Elementary School Teacher of the Year in the Rocklin Unified School District. As a kindergarten teacher at Antelope Creek Elementary School, Gwen has touched countless lives for good, both directly and indirectly. She has contributed many hours of behind-the-scenes work by participating in numerous district and school site committees. More importantly, she has earned praise from students, parents, and colleagues for her inspirational style of teaching. She sets clear boundaries for the children and reinforces positive behavior through praise. She is also known for maintaining a well organized yet stimulating classroom that is full of color. In fact, one of her fellow teachers has said, ``Her room is a learning lab which exudes personal enthusiasm and warmth. She has an ability to motivate students beyond their natural abilities and helps them reach their greatest potential.'' As a testament to Mrs. Sessions' involved approach to teaching, one parent has said, ``It is not uncommon to find Mrs. Sessions with red painted hands, bright colored clothes, and tiny little hands embraced around her.'' The first evidence of what Gwen is doing right is found in the fact that she has one of the largest Parent Volunteer programs at the school every year. High school students, parents, and grandparents enjoy volunteering in her classroom because she makes them feel rewarded for helping out. In addition to getting involved, many parents have also voiced their appreciation for the excellent way in which Gwen Sessions educates their children. Said one student's mother, ``It's always scary turning your child over to their first teacher. It didn't take long, however, for our family to learn to completely trust, respect, and appreciate Mrs. Sessions for all her wonderful gifts she has to offer.'' Remarked another mother, ``The first time I entered Mrs. Sessions kindergarten classroom I know my daughter was in the best hands possible.'' One parent and long-time instructional aide puts it this way, ``I feel her empathy with people and her desire to inspire others has made the difference in countless lives. She puts her heart and soul into her daily task of making the beginnings of our children's many years in school a joy.'' As a final and perhaps supreme tribute, another mother has said, ``She makes learning exciting and brings even the shyest of children out of their shell . . . I know we will look back in years to come and say, This teacher made a difference between success and failure.'' Congress has made improving education a top priority. As we continue searching for ways to better the educational system, we need to look at the positive things happening in schools across the country. I believe that Gwen Sessions is an excellent example of what is right with America's schools. To my friend Gwen Sessions, the Rocklin Unified School District Elementary School Teacher of the Year, I say, ``Thank you and congratulations on a job well done! Keep up the good work.''

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize a native of my congressional district who has brought glory and honor to herself, her family, and her fellow Americans. I wish to congratulate Stacy Dragila on recently winning the gold medal in the first-ever Olympic Women's Pole Vault Competition. Dragila grew up in Auburn, California, where she competed in goat roping as a child. As a heptathlete during her years on Placer High School's track and field team, she had little idea that she would one day stand atop the Olympic medals podium as a pole vault champion. You see, when she was in high school, the pole vault was an event in which only male competitors took part. As the women's pole vault has finally taken root in the United States, Stacy has quickly established herself as the premier athlete in her field. Each time she reaches a new personal best mark, she rewrites the world record. In fact, while competing on her home turf at this summer's U.S. Olympic Trials in Sacramento, she set the current world record 15'2\1/4\". By continually raising the bar, Stacy has forced her competitors to push their own limits as well. This resulted in an exciting duel at this month's Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia. In the end, Dragila brought home the gold with a vault of 15'1". At the age of 29, Stacy Dragila stands as an Olympic champion and as an American hero. Furthermore, as a pioneer in a new sport, she stands as a role model for those young women who will strive to match her achievements on the field. Perhaps most importantly, however, she is, by all accounts, a world-class person as well as a world-class athlete. Today, I proudly join with Americans everywhere in saluting gold medalist Stacy Dragila.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I appreciate the gentleman having this special order. I have been absolutely fascinated with some of the claims I see being made by our liberal Democrat brethren, and one of them is that the big thing now is to attack our tax cut plan, because we are giving a tax cut to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Of course, they never point out those are the Americans who paid a lot of the taxes, and, in fact, I believe the figures are that the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid a majority of the income taxes in this country. So it is really Marxist class warfare, is what it is. In fact, I do not like to use the term ``middle class,'' and I hear Vice President Gore use that term over and over and over again. It is a Marxist term. You will never find in the U.S. Constitution any reference to ``class.'' In fact, it says all men are created equal. It is the very opposite of this idea of classes that are to be pitted against each other, somehow using government to redistribute benefits from one to go to the other. I was absolutely fascinated to hear the attack levied recently by the Vice President on Republicans, and specifically Governor Bush, over this 1 percent, over giving the tax cut to all Americans, including the 1 percent of the wealthiest, and yet he then turns around and attacks the Republicans for not giving free prescription drugs to the top 1 percent of wealthiest Americans. Figure that one out. If that is not the height of hypocrisy and nonsense, I do not know what is. His socialistic disastrous plan for prescription drugs would destroy the surplus that we have worked so hard in the 6 years of Republican administration of this Congress to build up. He would create just another huge entitlement program that would result pretty much in government price fixing, and the drug industry would drop innovation and would be giving all these free prescription drugs to people who do not need them, and all the time he is telling us what a great fiscal conservative he is.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to remember and honor one of the pioneers of the City of Roseville, in my district in California, Mr. Robert L. Doyle. After a lifetime of dedication and service, my good friend Bob Doyle passed away on August 21 at 8:47 p.m. He was 81 years old. From the time he was born in his family's home in 1919 until his death, Bob was a fixture in Roseville. After graduating from Roseville High School in 1937, he went to work on the family farm where he expected to remain for the rest of his life. However, in 1953, he reached a turning point in his career. His father, who along with a group of other local farmers had formed the Roseville Telephone Company 26 years earlier, asked him to take over the struggling business. What started out as a temporary stint to set Roseville Telephone on the right course turned into a lifetime of building both the company and the community. In 1953, Roseville Telephone was a company serving 3,777 customers, employing 47 workers, with revenues of $210,000. It is now a highly successful, expanding business with annual revenue above $140 million and more than 700 employees. In 1995, the Roseville Communications Company was formed, becoming the parent company of Roseville Telephone and other subsidiaries. Bob Doyle acted as president of the Roseville Telephone Company until retiring from that post in 1993. He did, however, remain as Roseville Communications' chairman of the board of directors until retiring just one day before his death. Besides his own hard work and determination, Bob Doyle's management success was due in part to his talent for hiring good people and allowing them to do their job. He made his employees and shareholders feel like they had a personal stake in Roseville Telephone. He also made people feel that way about the Roseville community at large. In addition to his leadership at the company, Bob Doyle was involved in numerous civic and professional organizations. Among the local clubs he belonged to were the Roseville Masonic Lodge No. 222, Scottish Rite Bodies of Sacramento, Shriners, Loyal Order of the Moose Lodge, and the Elks Lodge. He also served as president of the Roseville Chamber of Commerce. Outside of Roseville, Bob Doyle was also recognized for his leadership in the telecommunications industry. He was involved with the Independent Telephone Pioneers Association and served as president of the California Telephone Association of Sacramento. It is also important for me to recognize that Bob's career of service included time in the U.S. Army Medical Division during World War II. On a personal note, I had the opportunity to work with him closely to address two of the Sacramento region's most vital needs--improved flood control and an increased water supply. Over the years, as we worked to advocate the construction of the Auburn Dam, I developed an even greater admiration and respect for Bob. Robert Doyle was not only a community leader, but he was also a great friend. He is survived by his wife, Carmen, three children and five grandchildren. While we join his family and friends in mourning his passing, we also celebrate his life and cherish our associations with him. He clearly left his mark on all of us. Roseville, which was once a sleepy railroad town, is now a vibrant, well-planned community with award-winning parks, law enforcement, and city management. Its railroad past blends with its newer high-tech industry and thriving retail centers. Its residential areas include dynamic new developments as well as historic neighborhoods. In short, Roseville has experienced many great changes and Robert Doyle seemed to be at the heart of them all. He will be sorely missed. May you rest in peace, Bob.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, last week, Bal Thackeray, founder and head of Shiv Sena, threatened to engulf India in violence if he is held accountable for his part in thousands of deaths in 1992. Shiv Sena is a coalition partner of the ruling BJP. Shiv Sena has been assigned responsibility for the bombing of the Ayodhya mosque in Uttar Pradesh. How could a democratic country accept a violent, intolerant person like this into the government? It is bad enough that the allies of the government commit atrocities and no one is ever held to account. Now a coalition partner says that he will engulf the country in violence. This shows that violence and intolerance are the prevailing way to life in India. Minorities are suffering from the intolerance of militant Hindu fundamentalists. A wave of violence against Christians has swept India since Christmas 1998. The most recent incident was the bombing of two churches in the state of Karnataka. The violence against Christians has been so severe that they appealed to the international community for help. Churches have been burned and now bombed. There have been attacks on prayer halls, Christian schools, and other Christian institutions. Militant Hindu nationalists burned missionary Graham Staines and his two young boys to death in their jeep while they were sleeping. These atrocities show the truth about India. If it is ``the world's largest democracy,'' how can it allow atrocities like this to keep occurring with nobody being held responsible? As the world's only superpower and the bastion of freedom for the world, we should take action. We should stop aid to India until all people within its borders enjoy human rights. And we should put the Congress on record in support of self-determination for the people of Khalistan, Kashmir, Nagalim, and all the countries seeking their freedom from India. I submit the article on Mr. Thackeray into the Record, Mr. Speaker. I hope everyone will read it. [From the New York Times International, July 17, 2000] Protests by Hindu Group Raise Fear in India BOMBAY, July 16 (Reuters)--Much of Bombay was shut down today by fear and protests over the possible prosecution of a militant Hindu leader in connection with riots that left more than 2,000 people dead in 1992. Supporters of Bal Thackeray, the leader of the Hindu nationalist party Shiv Sena, took to the Streets Saturday after the Maharashtra State government decided to let the police prosecute him in the countrywide rioting. That violence, directed mainly at India's Muslim minority, erupted after the destruction of a mosque in the town of Ayodhaya, and Shiv Sena got most of the blame. Police officials said no action had been taken to arrest Mr. Thackeray. but many shops closed and people stayed indoors here and in other parts of the state as Shiv Sena supporters pelted buses with stones and blocked commuter train services. Today Mr. Thackeray appealed for calm, but on Saturday he was quoted as saying, ``Not only Maharashtra but the entire country will burn'' as a result of the decision, which he called ``an incitement to communal riots.''

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, recently 20 of us wrote to the President urging him to declare India a terrorist nation. India has done a lot to deserve this designation. In the letter, we expressed our concern about the massacre of 35 innocent Sikhs in Chithi Singhpora, which took place while the President was visiting India in March. Two independent investigations have now confirmed that the Indian Government carried out this atrocity. After the massacre, the government killed five Kashmiri Muslims, declaring them militants who were responsible for the massacre. Now they have admitted that the Muslims they killed were innocent. When will they admit their role in the massacre itself? Until the minority peoples and nations of India enjoy freedom, there can be no stability in the subcontinent. It becomes increasingly clear every day that they cannot enjoy that freedom within Hindu India. America can also help to bring freedom to South Asia by cutting off our aid to India and by openly supporting self-determination for the people of the Sikh homeland of Punjab, Khalistan, the predominantly Muslim Kashmir, Christian Nagalim, and the other nations seeking their freedom from India. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting the letter to the President into the Record for the information of my colleagues. It describes the situation in India in much more detail than I can possibly go into here. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, June 15, 2000. Hon. Bill Clinton, President of the United States The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: While you were visiting India, 35 innocent Sikhs were massacred in the village of Chatti Singhpora in Kashmir. In recent days it has been reported that the Indian government admitted that the five Kashmiri Muslims it killed as ``militants'' responsible for the massacre were innocent. The Punjab Human Rights Organization and the Movement Against State Repression recently issued a report showing that the government's counterinsurgency forces, under the command of RAW, the Indian intelligence agency, carried out this massacre. An intensive investigation by the International Human Rights Organization also concluded that the Indian government carried out the massacre. Indian Home Minister L.K. Advani identified the Chatti Singhpora massacre as one of three recent events that have helped strengthen India's standing in world opinion. He implicitly admits that India benefitted from this atrocity. If India can admit that the Muslims it killed are innocent, when will it admit its own responsibility for the Chatti Singhpora massacre? This is a terrible atrocity and the United States must condernn it in the strongest possible terms. America must take action to make it clear that these actions are unacceptable. India has also committed similar acts of terrorism against its Christian population. Recently, six Christian missionaries were beaten by militant Hindu fundamentalists while distributing Bibles and religious tracts as part of a gospel campaign called ``Love Ahmedabad.'' They were beaten so savagely that one of them may lose his arms and legs. In Indore, St. Paul's Church was attacked. These acts are part of a campaign of terror against Christians that has been in full swing since Christmas 1998. Whether one is a Sikh, a Muslim, a Christian, or a member of another minority, there is no religious freedom in India, despite its claim that it is democratic. The essence of democracy is respect for the rights of all people. Our government should work to help bring real democracy to South Asia. Mr. President, it is time that America takes a stance against these terrorist atrocities by the Indian government. We urge you to add India to the list of terrorist nations. It is also time to stop aid to India until it observes human rights. And we should put America on record in support of self-determination for all the peoples and nations living under India's brutal rule. These are the most effective steps to bring freedom, prosperity, peace, and stability to South Asia. Sincerely, Donald M. Payne, M.C. and others.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I have long been concerned about threats to the American taxpayer and to our Constitution. Today I address an ongoing and significant threat to both. The issue involves the status of Puerto Rico. For too long the American public has been misled about how Puerto Rico's commonwealth status affects them. Most Americans seem to tolerate Puerto Rico's present relationship with the United States because they do not realize the direct harm it causes, including to Puerto Rico itself. Mr. Speaker, the truth is that Puerto Rico's commonwealth status is a drain on the American taxpaying public. Its status is an affront to our constitutional system of government. And, though it is hard to imagine, the leading proposal to continue and to enhance the current commonwealth status is even more offensive. First, the residents of Puerto Rico do not pay one dime in federal income taxes, yet collect roughly $11 billion annually in federal subsidies including massive welfare payments. This fact alone should offend all taxpaying Americans. At a time when Americans are working longer and harder to provide for their families, it is outrageous that we are shipping $11 billion of their hard-earned tax dollars to Puerto Rico and getting demands for more benefits in return. Second, the subsidy to Puerto Rico is likely to remain as long as it retains its commonwealth status. Under commonwealth, Puerto Rico has become home to a poor population that is losing ground compared to the mainland. Indeed, half of the island's residents receive food stamps--a rate considerably higher than the poorest of our 50 states. Mr. Speaker, we passed welfare reform in 1996 because we said the poor and out-of-work in America needed some ``tough love.'' This policy has proven successful; it is time to implement it in Puerto Rico. Third, the residents of Puerto Rico, even though they are U.S. citizens and mostly educated in public schools that receive large federal education funding grants, do not have access to a public English language education. Instead of diversity and respect for local heritage along with our common heritage in the United States, under decades of profoundly misguided federal and local policy we are allowing the creation of a Quebec-like enclave of linguistic separatism in Puerto Rico. According to the Census Bureau, only 25 percent of Puerto Rico's population is fluent in English and another 25 percent is only somewhat fluent. This percentage has not risen in years. English is the language of our nation and it is the language of global economic opportunity, which is why the wealthy in Puerto Rico send their kids to private schools that teach in English. As long as one dollar of federal funds is going to Puerto Rico we should require an end to the linguistic segregation of students in the public schools of Puerto Rico. Other facts demonstrate the cultural divide under commonwealth. For example, four times as many residents of the island consider themselves ``Puerto Ricans'' as opposed to ``Americans''. Yet 95 percent vote to retain U.S. citizenship. We need to end this ``have it both ways'' relationship and be honest about Puerto Rico's status. In my congressional district alone, I know many individuals whose ancestors have come from Ireland, Germany, Mexico, and all over the globe, but I know they consider themselves to be Americans first. Recent developments in Vieques cast further doubt on the wisdom of the current commonwealth with the United States. For the first time, American servicemen and women are being denied critical training exercises on U.S. soil. We all regret the recent accident that took the life of a civilian employee working for the Navy, but if we are truly serious about protecting lives, we will continue live-fire training there so that our American military personnel are fully prepared for battle. Instead, we are paying an inordinate amount of attention to an extreme overreaction to any U.S. military presence on the island by a population that relies on that military to keep them free. These are the facts about Puerto Rico. They might not be politically correct, but they are the truth. I share them today, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it does the American people and the residents of Puerto Rico a great disservice to perpetuate the fiction that Puerto Rico's federally subsidized commonwealth status can continue indefinitely. I have little doubt that, if fully armed with the facts, the American people would overwhelmingly oppose continued commonwealth status for Puerto Rico. But like a doctor who treats a bad reaction with a double dosage of the same bad medicine, the leaders of the procommonwealth party in Puerto Rico are now proposing an ``enhanced'' commonwealth status that gives Puerto Ricans more rights and even fewer responsibilities. This enhanced commonwealth proposal, Mr. Speaker, is an outrage that should be swiftly and forcefully rejected by this Congress. This change would not only continue to take advantage of American taxpayers, it would violate the United States Constitution. Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution states that, ``Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.'' Read in conjunction with the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Framers of our Constitution could not have been clearer as to the proper sovereign of U.S. territories. In short, it is the Congress that has sole authority under our Constitution to make all laws and regulations with regard to Puerto Rico. Any proposal that asserts or promises otherwise is irresponsible and plainly unconstitutional. And, yet, the formula to enhance commonwealth being proposed plainly asserts that the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to Puerto Rico now or in the future. It does so without identifying the source of constitutional authority for Congress to abdicate its territorial powers through statute and to conduct a ``bilateral'' relationship with the ``nation'' of Puerto Rico. Mr. Speaker, this is not ``union'' at all under the Constitution. It represents a treaty-based form of free association, despite the fact that Congress already has determined that free association is terminable at will by either party, not permanent. Under such a formula, U.S. sovereignty, nationality, and citizenship would be terminated at once. To continue or, worse yet, to somehow ``enhance'' this fraudulent relationship with Puerto Rico will only lead to increased resentment on both sides. Consider the anti-death penalty demonstrations taking place today on the island. The majority of Puerto Rico's residents not only disagree with mainland Americans' support for the death penalty, they even object to U.S. officials applying capital punishment for federal crimes committed within Puerto Rico. This is another example, Mr. Speaker, of the desire to have it both ways under commonwealth. Commonwealth proponents want binding permanent union, guaranteed U.S. citizenship, and an uninterrupted stream of federal assistance, but do not want to be bound by federal capital punishment for federal crimes. Enough is enough. Mr. Speaker, I think the majority of the American people would agree with me and reject both the current and proposed commonwealth status for Puerto Rico. It is about time they were given the opportunity to do so. They should have the opportunity to make their voices heard through their elected representatives. This can only happen if we have a legislative vehicle upon which to begin this debate. The legislation I am introducing today will provide that vehicle. It is the ``United States-Puerto Rico Bilateral Pact of Permanent Union and Guaranteed Citizenship Act.'' This bill would implement under federal law the ``Proposal for the Development of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico'' as adopted by the Governing Board of the Popular Democrat Party of Puerto Rico. It would permit Puerto Ricans to continue to receive government handouts without having to pay income taxes. It allows for separate Puerto Rican and American cultures, including different languages. And it would grant to Puerto Rico the authority to negotiate international agreements. I am introducing this bill today with the intention that it never becomes law. I do hope, however, that this bill will provoke an honest discussion of Puerto Rico's future and the truth about its current status.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler). He is highly principled and has the courage to do what I think is clearly right by the people of the United States in offering this amendment. The points that he has made I agree with completely. The Clinton administration and the liberals could not get through the Congress what they wanted to, so they tried to do it through a settlement using the power of the Government, suing the gun manufacturer, and then securing a whole raft of restrictions entered into supposedly voluntarily as part of the settlement. It affects the gun rights of everyone. I just think it is terribly misplaced. I hope we approve the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana that will, in essence, gut the settlement, because it deserves to be set aside. If we are going to enact legislation or policies of this type, then bring them here to the Congress of the United States. Let us debate them and let the people's Representatives make the decision about this rather than simply having this done off to the side in the secrecy of settlement agreements that are entered into. The thing that bothers me the most, though, Mr. Chairman, is this constant focus of liberals on the gun, the instrumentality, rather than on the people who are misusing the instrumentality. I mean, we have seen this time and time and time again. It is just a diversionary tactic because it is covering up the fact that, under the Clinton administration, Federal prosecution of gun crimes has dropped precipitously. When we had a great program that we knew worked, like Project Exile in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and we tried to expand that to the rest of the country, the administration would not do it. Only this year under extreme pressure did they finally have to relent and start that program in other parts of the country where we have seen dramatic reductions in gun violence because the Federal Government, through the U.S. attorney in cooperation with local law enforcement, is prosecuting vigorously and to the fullest extent of the law the misuse of a firearm. That is the direction we ought to be heading in, punishing the misuse of the firearm, not trying to achieve through stealth, in my judgment, what cannot be done by getting a majority of the House and Senate to go along with these very same policies when they are put to a vote here. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) has a great amendment. I hope people support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, Newsroom.org, a website devoted to religious news from around the world, reported on June 15 that Christian leaders in India have appealed for help from abroad. The Christian leaders of India, including the United Forum of Catholics and Protestants of West Begal, wrote to the Secretary General of the United Nations complaining that the Indian government and police have ignored the wave of terror against Christians since Christmas 1998. They have also requested help from Amnesty International in stopping these atrocities. ``We are scared,'' said Herod Malik, the leader of the United Forum. ``We have to go to international organizations because we have no faith in the Indian government.'' Just a few days ago Hindu nationalist militants murdered a priest and placed five bombs in four churches. Some Christians who were peacefully distributing Bibles and Christian religious literature were savagely beaten, one so badly that he may lose his arms and legs. These are just the most recent incidents. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is not just Christians who are suffering atrocities and persecution. Sikhs, Muslims, Dalits, and others are oppressed in a similar fashion, although Christians seem to be the primary targets at the moment. We can help these people to live in freedom and in the assurance that their rights will finally be respected. If Indian promotes terror against its religious and ethnic minorities, it is not a country that the United States should be supporting. Cutting off its aid is one message it would understand loudly and clearly. We should also declare our support for self-determination through an internationally- supervised plebiscite on the future of political status of Christian Nagaland, of the Sikh homeland, Khalistan, Kashmir, and other nations of Indian. Remember that the people of Kashmir were promised a plebiscite in 1948 and it has never been held. It is time for the United States and the international community to hold India's feet to the fire. Mr. Speaker, I submit the Newsroom.com article of June 15 into the Record for the information of my colleagues. [From Newsroom.com, June 15, 2000] Christians in India seek help from abroad A wave of church bombings and murders of clergy has prompted Christian leaders in India to appeal for international help, according to Ccatholic World News. The United Forum of Catholics and Protestants of West Bengal claimed Tuesday that the Indian government and police have ignored their pleas and have insisted the attacks are random crimes. The Christian leaders said they have written to the secretary general of the United Nations and also are appealing to the human rights group Amnesty International. ``We are scared. We have to go to international organizations because we have no faith in the Indian government,'' said Herod Malik, the head of the United Forum. The leaders said that unless international groups pressure the Indian government to protect Christians from Hindu fundamentalists, the ``atrocities will increase.'' Bombs exploded in four churches in the southern Indian states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Goa on June 8, injuring at least one person. The blasts occurred the day after a Roman Catholic priest was murdered in the Mathura district of Uttar Pradesh in northern India. The nation's governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) blamed the four church bombings on Pakistani intelligence ``out to give Hindu organizations a bad name.'' Opposition parties, however, assert that the bombings are the work of the Sangh Parivar, the extended family of Hindu organizations. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee promised a delegation of Christian leaders on Monday that his government would investigate the incidents fully. Christians charge that the Hindu nationlist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), considered the ideological parent of the BJP, have engaged in a campaign against Christians since the BJP came to power two years ago. The New Delhi-based United Christian Forum for Human Rights says that in the past year it has documented 120 attacks by Hindu fundamentalists against Christian individuals, churches, and schools. Indian government officials deny having any influence on the aggression. CWN said a senior interior ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity, insisted the Christian community had nothing to fear and the government was taking steps to prevent such attacks.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the U.S. Forest Service from using any funds, appropriate or otherwise, to be used to paint their vehicles the green color described as Federal Standard 595, Color Chip Number 14,260.

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.