Eni Faleomavaega

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his most comprehensive and eloquent remarks concerning this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Stokes), a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to compliment the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the cosponsor of this legislation, for his eloquent remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that the House of Representatives is finally considering legislation to honor the Underground Railroad. This bill, H.R. 1635, introduced by our highly respected colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), would establish the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Program under the National Park Service. Mr. Stokes and my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), worked together to establish this program to identify sites and areas important to the struggle for freedom known as the Underground Railroad. This bill is without a doubt a long and overdue recognition of an important piece of American history. Mr. Speaker, the program will incorporate Underground Railroad routes and sites with interpretive information about the railroad and the people involved. The National Park Service will work in cooperation with State and local governments and the private sector to develop a comprehensive written history. The Underground Railroad stretched for thousands of miles from Kentucky and Virginia across Ohio and Indiana. In a northerly direction it stretched from Maryland across Pennsylvania and through New York and through New England. This was not just a route north though, and the network this legislation establishes will link numerous locations and landmarks within the United States as well the Caribbean, Mexico and Canada. It is estimated that in the decade before the Civil War, the Underground Railroad movement was responsible for helping approximately 70,000 slaves escape and journey safely to freedom. Many never made it to freedom, dying along the way or caught and forced to endure unspeakable punishments and torture. Attempts made through the Underground Railroad were made at tremendous risk for those fleeing slavery and anyone who helped along the way. The movement involved Americans of many different backgrounds. Bringing its experience and lessons to bear on the present, it is inherently a multiracial process. Each generically different experience is grounded in race and personal wealth, but together they shared much in this experience of the freedom story that transcended race and echoed common commitments among fellow human beings. Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the intention of this legislation, but as I mentioned throughout consideration of this bill, I am deeply concerned that a $500,000 authorization will not cover the costs of this most important program. I understand that the majority Members feel that this is all that would be acceptable to their leadership, and therefore I will not fight it. But I would be remiss if I did not raise my belief that it would be a terrible disservice to the memory of the tens of thousands who suffered and braved so much to be involved with the Underground Railroad if this Nation does not adequately fund this important endeavor. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my good friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for 1 additional minute.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to say again to the eloquence of my two good friends as cosponsors of this legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) for bringing this piece of legislation to the floor for consideration and to commend them both for the spirit of bipartisanship that we have this legislation, understanding the spirit behind it, the intention. Hopefully this will be one of those remarkable pieces of history that will be helpful not only for our generation but for future generations to appreciate what these people did as they participated in the Underground Railroad system. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to say my personal tribute to my good friend and colleague who has certainly been an inspiration to me over the years that I have served in the House, my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), who will not be here since he is retiring, but just to let him know how much we really appreciate the service that he has rendered, not only to this body, to his district, and certainly to the American people.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, but I do want to commend the gentlewoman from Idaho for her management of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, this legislation proposes to adjust the boundaries of the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area in the State of Washington to exclude 88 acres. Currently a private landowner is subject to dual jurisdiction by the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. This bill in effect would place the lands in the Wenatchee National Forest, which is solely administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Both the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) as the chief sponsor of this legislation and for bringing this matter to the attention of the House, and I do urge the adoption of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to associate myself with the compliments and statements made earlier by my good friend from California and certainly his support for the Philippines. I rise in support of House Resolution 404, which commemorates 100 years of relations between the good people of the Philippines and the United States. I commend the chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), for introducing and supporting adoption of this important measure. I am proud to join these gentlemen and our colleagues on the committee as an original cosponsor of the legislation and also my good friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). Mr. Speaker, today we honor an old and enduring friendship that has linked the United States and the Philippines for almost a century. Our relationship dates back to 1898 when Commodore George Dewey sank the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay, ending three centuries of Spanish colonial rule and laying the foundation for Philippine independence from Spain. For in the next 100 years, Americans and Filipinos have shared a special bond forged in war and strengthened in peace. Mr. Speaker, the Philippines should be commended for being one of the most vibrant democracies in Asia. Since the people power revolt in 1986 that ousted Ferdinand Marcos, three Presidents have been placed in office by free and fair elections in the Philippines. Last month, Vice President Joseph Estrada was the runaway winner of the May 11 Presidential election against nine other candidates. On June 30, Mr. Estrada, an opposition leader, shall take office from President Fidel Ramos, again marking a smooth transition of power as befits a true democracy. Under President Ramos' leadership, the Philippines has implemented economic reforms while embracing free market principles. The trade liberalization policy has led to an economic renaissance for the Philippines, going from zero growth in 1991 to an increase over 6 percent GNP in recent years. The United States has been and continues to be the largest trading partner and foreign investor in the Philippines. One-third of Philippines' exports come to America. Two-way annual trade between our two countries has exceeded over $12 billion. Mr. Speaker, the people of the Philippines and the people of the United States have always had close relations. Today almost 2 million Americans are of Filipino descent, while close to 130,000 U.S. citizens presently reside in the Philippines. People of the Philippines have always been a trusted ally of the United States in times of conflict. During World War II more than 100,000 Filipinos volunteered for the Philippine Commonwealth Army, fighting under American commanders alongside U.S. Armed Forces. Filipino soldiers also sacrificed their blood alongside U.S. troops in the Korean and Vietnam wars. This friendship and alliance continues today with our mutual defense treaty, which commits our nations to each other's defense in case of external attack, while preserving stability in the region. Mr. Speaker, because of the deep and enduring ties that have traditionally bound the people of the Philippines and the U.S. together, I would strongly urge our colleagues to adopt this resolution before us. All Americans should honor our good friendship with the Philippines on this important commemoration of their independence, support their continued political and economic progress, and work to maintain the special and close relationship between our sister democracies.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I think, just for the clarity of the record, that the administration is quite clear as far as its policies concerning the one China policy. It is quite clear the administration policy is one of engagement with the People's Republic of China. It is quite firm also, the administration's policy towards Taiwan is to continue the current relationship as it has been in the past. So with regard to the comments of my good friend from California, I think there is no ambiguity about the policy of the administration. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 285 which urges President Clinton reconsider his decision to be received in Tiananmen Square. Mr. Speaker, President Bush condemned the Chinese government when the killings occurred; and President Clinton has repeatedly been on record and made clear his view that the breakup of the demonstrations and killing of innocent civilians was unacceptable and a great mistake by the Chinese leaders. Traditionally, the Chinese Government welcomes heads of state by arrival ceremonies held at the Great Hall of People which is next to Tiananmen Square. All dignitaries from around the world are accorded the same reception at the Great Hall, as was done with Japanese Prime Minister Hashimoto, French President Chirac, British Prime Minister Major, Russian President Yeltsin, and even Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Mr. Speaker, are we as a Nation greater than all of these democratic nations combined? It seems to me that we are bordering along the line of arrogance to tell another sovereign nation how it should receive our President. The reception of these world leaders at the Great Hall did not signify their government's condoning the Tiananmen Square massacre. Likewise, President Clinton's reception at the Great Hall cannot be construed as bestowing legitimacy on the Chinese Government's brutal actions 9 years ago. Mr. Speaker, contrary to the views of my friends in the Republican majority, I honestly believe the presence of President Clinton on Tiananmen Square will reinforce and reaffirm fundamental basic democratic values and principles to all the leaders and the people of China. President Clinton should respect Chinese protocol and use the opportunity of the Great Hall to expressly honor the memories of those who died in Tiananmen Square, while urging that China continue progress at all levels for human rights. Mr. Speaker, I urge that our colleagues vote against this measure.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, the 11 nuclear detonations conducted by India and Pakistan this past month demonstrated in graphic fashion the weakness of present international efforts to control nuclear proliferation. The tests also revealed the folly of economic sanctions in deterring nuclear proliferation when balanced against asserted interests of national security. In a recent opinion editorial piece in the Washington Post, physicist Zia Mian and professor Frank Von Hippel of Princeton University provide an answer to proliferation that I fully support, and I want to share this with my colleagues. They advocate, and I quote, ``India's and Pakistan's nuclear tests are a challenge that can be met in either of two ways. One would be to simply recreate the nuclear status quo with two more nuclear weapon states and accept the enormous dangers for the people of India and Pakistan and the rest of the world. The alternative would be to take international steps to devalue nuclear weapons' possessions by moving the nuclear goal posts towards disarmament. ``The history of the past 50 years teaches that nuclear weapons are unusable for rational military purposes and that their existence makes ordinary human miscalculation or madness potentially catastrophic. Yet the nuclear weapon states act as if they are giants in the world of pygmies, creating imagination in many countries and a temptation for nationalistic parties such as India's newly governing BJP.'' And I further quote from this article, Mr. Speaker. ``India is behaving like a state that has successfully broken into the nuclear club, and Pakistan, after hesitating over the likely ruinous price of membership, has decided that it must join as well. Israel slipped in long ago, thanks to the United States being willing to cast a blind eye in its direction. Other States such as Iran and Iraq and perhaps South Korea, Taiwan and Japan wait in the wings. ``To break this dynamic, the United States, Russia and other charter members of the nuclear club must make it more credible that they really intend to put the nuclear club out of business. ``The first step would be to end the civilization endangering practice of keeping nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert, a posture that India and Pakistan are threatening to imitate.'' Secondly, ``The United States should also immediately ratify the test ban treaty and thereby encourage Russia and China to ratify. Britain and France have already done. Bringing the treaty into force is a key first test of the world's willingness to walk away from nuclear weapons. The United States, Russia and China should underline the irreversibility of their commitments by shutting down their test sites.'' Third, ``The United States should also cut back drastically its lavish stockpile stewardship program, which has inspired fears both at home and abroad that the United States intends to continue the arms race alone.'' And I would note Mr. Speaker, that this $61 billion 13-year-old program costs more annually than what the U.S. spent on major nuclear weapons programs during the height of the Cold War. Moreover, the enormous funding is being used to develop facilities to research and design nuclear warheads, not just monitoring our present arsenal while it awaits dismantlement. Fourth, ``The United States, Russia, Britain and France should also act on their commitment at the April, 1996, Moscow Nuclear Safety and Security Summit to place excess fissile materials under international safeguards as soon as possible. Russia and the United States can start it immediately by committing to reduce their stockpiles on unsafeguarded fissile materials to the levels required to maintain only the 2,000 to 2,500 strategic warheads that have been agreed to for the past START Treaty III.'' Mr. Speaker, this would be a 90 percent reduction of our arsenals from the peak Cold War levels. Last, the authors urge that the U.S. and Russia announce that they intend to reduce further, on a bilateral basis and rapidly, these warheads. In addition to these steps, they should demonstrate the good faith of the nuclear powers to pursue elimination of nuclear weapons as promised and committed to under article VI of the Nonproliferation Treaty. It is important that the United States initiate multilateral talks for the negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention. On this matter, Mr. Speaker, I would deeply commend the gentlewoman from California, the honorable Lynn Woolsey, for her leadership in introducing legislation later this week that recognizes the security interests of the United States in furthering complete global nuclear disarmament. I am proud to be an original cosponsor, along with several other of our colleagues, of this measure that supports discussion in Congress of a model nuclear weapons convention and urges the President to initiate multilateral negotiations leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. Mr. Speaker, both India and Pakistan have called for the global elimination of nuclear weapons by adoption of a nuclear weapons convention with verification and compliance measures. It should be clear to all that our Nation's continued reliance on nuclear weapons undermines the international efforts to persuade other countries not to acquire nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker, to curb the global spread of the only weapon that can utterly destroy the United States and her people, it is vital that we take steps now leading to the elimination and outlawing of nuclear weapons worldwide, as we have done with chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction; and to this, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent also to submit two articles that I would like to be submitted to be made part of the Record. The articles referred to are as follows: [From the Wall Street Journal, May 13, 1998] Review and Outlook Desert Blasts When a lawyer's client too loudly protests, ``I'm innocent,'' it probably means he's just the opposite. So it is with the Indian statement of bravado in Monday's nuclear weapons tests beneath the Rajasthan desert. While New Delhi basks in the eerie glow of ``equally'' among nuclear powers, the tests are an indication not so much of strength among nations, but of profound weakness at home. That makes the gauntlet the Indian government has just thrown down to Beijing and Islamabad even more dangerous. But it shouldn't have come as any surprise that India wants to join the club in which so many of its neighbors are already members. Optimists hope India intends to go the route of France and China, and cap its explosive debut into the hydrogen bomb club with a signature on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Comprehensive Test Ban treaties. Pessimists fear that steering New Delhi in such a direction would require a sustained application of global persuasive powers that may fail. And really deep pessimists would worry that the Indians concluded that the Clinton Administration's policy on exporting commercial satellite technology did in fact improve China's missile guidance capability. The most realistic approach may be to say that if New Delhi can test, so can the rest of the nuclear powers--to modernize and refine their arsenals. If India is safer with a modern nuclear weapons programs, wouldn't we all be? It's very well for nations like Denmark and Japan to talk of freezing aid in protest at the tests, or for Americans to speak of antinuclear sanctions kicking in. In the end, though, such efforts usually dissipate or even reverse themselves in the form of offers to pay the offender hug sums to mend his ways. Indians may be behaving irresponsibly, but they aren't dumb. these tests were part of a calculated plan to call attention to themselves as big players, and the world outrage will be taken for now as proof that the message was received. In a different universe, the most effective response to Monday's explosions might have been to pretend no one notices. As things are, what's incredible is the outpouring of surprise, as if no one in Washington or other capitals heard members of the Bharatiya Janata Party campaign promise to rev up India's nuclear program. Washington's statement that the United States--operating the World's most sophisticated technical intelligence facilites--failed to detect preparations for the tests may be more astonishing than the tests themselves. It will be awhile before India is ready to bargain, if it ever is, so perhaps more immediate attention should be paid to Pakistan. This erstwhile staunch U.S. ally during the Cold War has borne the brunt of antinuclear outrage all along; indeed, the moment its usefullness as an Afghan war ally ended, Pakistan was socked with American sanctions on suspicion of having a nuclear program. All the years India got grudging respect and no slaps at all for its if-rich-big- countries-have-nukes-then-poor-countries-can-too stance, Pakistan was under bombardment from the antiproliferation community for every purchase, real or imagined, of any kind of modern weaponry. But anything Washington can do to help persuade Pakistan that it is safe without matching India will do a huge service--both to Pakistan, whose long-suffering people cannot afford and do not deserve the crushing burden of a heightened arms race, and to all those who rightly fear nuclear warfare in the Subcontinent. Which bring us to China and Russia. India's old friends in Moscow have some tough choices to make. India was a Cold War comrade and remains a steady arms customer. But what about Beijing, whose recent hand of friendship and multibillion- dollar nuclear power market could be worth so much more than anything India has to offer? China, which India's defense minister has identified as his country's ``potential threat No. 1,'' can't ignore New Delhi's explosions. Beijing signed the test ban treaty in 1996 after a final series of much-criticized tests, and it may choose now to mount the podium of generalized international moral outrage--perhaps while delivering a more forceful bilateral response in private. But if China wants its claim as a force for regional stability to be taken seriously, it must demonstrate leadership here, not merely sit back while the feathers fly. When the clouds settle, the BJP's decision to do openly what India has only boasted and postured about for so long may be seen as a good thing. Monday's tests in Rajasthan, like France's Pacific tests of 1995-96, remind us that nations that rely for their security or for that of their allies on a credible nuclear deterrent have a responsibility to be honest about their arsenal, and to make sure it works. If nothing else, India's tests have blown away the dangerous hypocrisy that has characterized so much of its behavior over the years. No longer holier-than-thou, India is now revealed as being just like everyone else.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, last week India, the world's largest democracy, conducted five nuclear weapons tests setting off a barrage of international criticism led by our own Nation. It is feared that a South Asian nuclear arms raise with Pakistan shall have global implications, encouraging North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya and others to pursue nuclear ambitions. Days ago, former President Jimmy Carter addressed the issue of India's nuclear tests in commencement speeches he delivered at Trinity College at the University of Pennsylvania. I found President Carter's remarks, as reported by the news wires, to be very enlightening and wanted to share them with my colleagues. President Carter, the last American President to visit India, noted that the United States, a country that possesses thousands of nuclear weapons, fails to ratify a comprehensive test ban treaty and continues to deploy land mines is hardly one that has the right to demand the opposite from other nations such as India. Pointing out the hypocrisy of U.S. nuclear policy, Mr. Carter stated, ``It is hard for us to tell India you cannot have a nuclear device, while maintaining we will keep our nuclear weapons, 8,000 or more nuclear bombs, and we are not ready to reduce them yet.'' Mr. Carter continued, ``We claim we are for a comprehensive test ban to prevent all testing of nuclear weapons, but we still have not ratified the treaty. We claim we want to reduce nuclear arsenals,'' said Mr. Carter, ``but many years later the START II treaty is still not in effect with Russia.'' In expressing concern about India's nuclear tests, Mr. Speaker, President Carter further states, ``People look to the United States with great admiration but also for guidance. We have not been fair in trying to keep people from developing nuclear weapons.'' President Carter concluded, ``If the United States wishes to halt the global arms raise, they must lead by example and not by condemnation.'' Mr. Speaker, President Carter's points are well taken. Many around the world are starting to conclude India's nuclear tests are in great part a direct result of the failure of the United States and the other four members of the nuclear club to seriously move forward towards nuclear disarmament. Yesterday, at the United Nations, Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that, ``Our senses have been lulled a little bit with regard to the nuclear danger, but I think what has happened in India has woken everybody up.'' In discussing India and Pakistan, Annan said the five self-declared nuclear powers, the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China, must take stock of their positions because, and I quote, ``You cannot have an exclusive club who have nuclear weapons and are refusing to disband it and tell them now not to have it. The nuclear powers need to set an example for other nations.'' Mr. Dan Plesch, the director of the British-American Security Information Council, an arms control group, has asked, ``How much longer can we hang on to our own nuclear weapons while trying to prevent others from getting them? Either we say nuclear deterrence is goods for all, or we carry out a realistic program to ban nuclear weapons.'' Mr. Speaker, in a world discriminating between nuclear haves and have-nots, there will always be the temptation for nuclear proliferation. Clearly, global nuclear disarmament is the only real solution to this madness. In 1975, the international community, including the nuclear powers, outlawed the development, production, stockpiling and the use of biological agents for warfare through the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. In 1977, the international community supported the coming into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which likewise prohibited the development, production and use of chemical weapons throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, because of their horrific and destructive nature, biological and chemical weapons have been declared immoral and illegitimate, and are not to be tolerated. However, Mr. Speaker, there is no weapon of mass destruction that is more horrific, more destructive or more deadly than nuclear weapons. The argument for the elimination of this incomprehensibly monstrous force that threatens the world's inhabitants and our very planet is self-evident. It is time, Mr. Speaker, that the nuclear powers negotiate a nuclear weapons convention that requires the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons within a time frame incorporating verification and enforcement provisions. We cannot afford to squander the dangerous wake-up call sent by India's recent nuclear tests. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record two news articles regarding this topic: [The Wall Street Journal, May 19, 1998] Hypocrisy Is the Hallmark of the Nuclear Flap (By George Melloan) At the wind-up of the G-8 summit in Birmingham Sunday, French President Jacques Chirac issued a stern warning to Pakistan: If you dare to test a nuclear weapon, the G-8 will use a communique ``exactly identical to the one we put out on India.'' By ``exactly identical,'' which probably sounds less redundant in French, he meant that the G-8 would ``express our grave concern.'' That's what the G-8 lashed India with, so Pakistan had better watch out. No doubt the Paks reacted privately with the same degree of amusement that the Indians were unable to suppress over the posturing by the leaders of ``the world's eight leading nations'' in response to India's tests. There is of course nothing funny about nuclear weapons, but the grandstanding in Birmingham had elements of comedy. The assemblage--relying no doubt on the same superb intelligence that had keep them all in the dark about India's testing plans--at one point was led to believe that even during their debate Pakistan had exploded a bomb somewhere. Had someone not set them straight, they might have fired that exactly identical ``grave concern'' communique at Karachi prematurely. The Paks were doing their best, with differing statements from different officials, to confuse the world about whether they in fact will match the tests by their neighboring archenemy. Russian President Boris Yeltsin was among the summiteers expressing ``grave concern.'' He has been allowed to join the Group of Seven (G-7) leading member nations of the International Monetary Fund, so it now is routinely called the G-8. He can't mix in economic deliberations because Russia is on the IMF dole, but his country still is taken seriously as a military power. That may be because it has 877 nuclear ICMBs, able to strike anywhere in the world. That statistic is from that latest ``Military Balance'' published by London's International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and doesn't begin to cover Russia's total capability. Many of its missiles have multiple warheads and it also has 452 submarine-based nukes. Mr. Yeltsin's grave concern apparently doesn't extend to preventing Russian nuclear and missile technology from leaking to would-be nuclear states, if U.S. suspicions are correct. The world's most populous nation, China, has more than 17 intercontinental and more than 38 intermediate-range nukes, according to the IISS estimate. It also has been accused by the U.S. of selling missile technology to Pakistan among others. And it also has tested its nukes when it pleased, thumbing its nose at the world at large. But Bill Clinton is so friendly with the Chinese that in 1996 he was willing to overrule State Department objections to letting them launch U.S.-made space satellites despite the danger of giving them valuable missile technology, according to reports in the New York Times over the weekend. He also seems to have been less than assiduous about preventing the Chinese from insinuating themselves into the U.S. political process through violations of the U.S. campaign finance laws, judging from testimony by erstwhile go-between and frequent White House visitor Johnny Chung made public last week. Given the way the American president treats the two big non-NATO nuclear powers, should it be any surprise that Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee decided to go public with India's nukes? His BJP Hindu nationalist party leads a shaky new governing coalition and he smelled added popularity from showing that Indian can ``stand up,'' as Mao would have put it. He may have been right. TV footage showed Indians dancing in the streets on hearing the news. Beware of TV scenes, which often are staged, but it is not unbelievable that Indians might think that becoming the world's sixth declared nuclear nation will finally win them some respect. It hasn't so far, of course. Mr. Clinton's reaction was to slap on sanctions, cutting off U.S. direct aid and threatening to veto further help from the IMF and the World Bank. But it's early times, and Mr. Vajpayee is smart enough to know that a cutoff of outside aid might be just the thing to help him with the politics of installing policies, such as opening the country up to more foreign investment, that will allow India to develop on its own. Just being noticed by those big-time guys in Birmingham, and the folks next door in China, he might figure, is almost worth the cost of losing handouts from the U.S., Japan, Canada, Australia and Germany, the countries that have applied sanctions. What truly upset the folks in Birmingham, and Mr. Clinton especially, was not the fear that India will now shoot nuclear missiles at its neighbors. Two of those neighbors, China and Russia, could annihilate India in response and Pakistan, probably, could at least retaliate in kind. What troubles the leaders, and much of the global intellectual community, is this further evidence that arms control treaties do not control the spread of modern arms. The two Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties of the Cold War were full of holes and the Russian parliament has not ratified the successor, START II. In the CFE deal limiting conventional weapons in Europe, the U.S.S.R. got a loophole excluding ``naval'' troops, of which it turned out to have had quite a number who had never set foot on a ship. Iraq has not been at all inhibited by chemical and biological weapons limitations. Attempting to apply nuclear controls internationally has run afoul of realities. We live in a world of nation states. Those states that do not feel threatened, do not want the expense of nukes and want to enjoy a pretense of virtue, have readily signed onto the antiproliferation and test-ban treaties. India and Pakistan, living in a rough neighborhood unprotected by NATO or other alliances, have put national security ahead of niceties. It's too bad, but that's the way it is. Bill Clinton had every right to be shocked at this latest mugging by reality. He heads what some choose to call the world's most powerful nation. But it has no defense against nuclear missiles. In the harsh equation of war, the U.S.'s very wealth works against it should it ever be threatened by a poor country with nuclear missiles. It would have a lot more to lose, and even if it suffered a limited attack it would be reluctant to use its vast might against the impoverished masses of the attacking country. Maybe Mr. Clinton should think more about U.S. security.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, India, the world's largest democracy, detonated five nuclear weapons tests last week in the name of national security. This shocked the world and demonstrated in graphic fashion the perceived unfairness and inherent weakness of the international nuclear nonproliferation system now in place. We can expect Pakistan to reciprocate and go nuclear, and I would not be surprised to see other countries like North Korea, Iran and Libya to resume their nuclear programs. Mr. Speaker, this madness and insane rush towards nuclear proliferation is inevitable as long as we continue to perpetuate a 24- year make-believe situation that India could not explode a nuclear bomb, and 28 years of a highly discriminatory and one-sided world of nuclear haves and have-nots. If we are serious about stopping nuclear proliferation, the United States and the nuclear powers must take the first step and commit to a concrete timetable for nuclear disarmament and a verification process. One of America's finest military officers, former Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command General Lee Butler, said, Proliferation cannot be contained in a world where a handful of self-appointed nations both arrogate to themselves the privilege of owning nuclear weapons and extol the ultimate security assurance they assert such weapons convey. A world free of the threat of nuclear weapons is necessarily a world devoid of nuclear weapons. The United States should make unequivocal its commitment to the elimination of nuclear arsenals and take the lead in setting an agenda for moving forthrightly toward that objective. Mr. Speaker, at this important time of peace, we should pay close attention to General Butler's concerns and foresight. Mr. Speaker, whether we like it or not, India is now an official member of the so-called ``Nuclear Club.'' But do not blame India for this. Blame our one-sided and faulty policy towards nuclear nonproliferation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise).

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and commend the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands for his leadership in the management of this legislation before the House today. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1522 amends the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Through this act, historically significant buildings, sites and districts have been preserved, keeping America's history alive. The primary purpose of the bill before us today is to reauthorize the National Historic Preservation Fund. Monies from the fund are derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and Congress set the authorization level at $150 million per year. Authorization for the fund expired on September 30th, 1997. This bill extends authorization of the fund through the year 2004. As I have stated throughout our consideration of this bill, I would prefer the bill end there. In fact, the bill that was first introduced or the one that we brought to the floor today, I would not be able to support its passage. However, the bill's chief sponsor, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) brought many sides together and has put together a bill that I believe is worthy of our support. I do want to commend the gentleman from Colorado for his leadership and for his ability to bring everyone together at the table and to come out with a consensus as we have now. He worked even this morning to address concerns raised by the administration. Mr. Speaker, even with all the changes made to the bill since its introduction, concerns over certain provisions still exist. In particular, the Office of Management and Budget is concerned with the provision which takes away the mandatory requirement for the Keeper of the Register to make a determination of whether or not his site is eligible to be listed on the Register of Historic Places when property owners oppose the designation. The Office of Management and Budget and the National Park Service fear this language could require the Keeper to act only in the most contentious of issues, thereby politicizing the process. Regardless of this language, Mr. Speaker, however, the current practice whereby no site is placed on the register while owners oppose such a designation remains intact. The statement of administration policy of this legislation states that the administration has no objection to the passage of H.R. 1522 but will work to have the discretionary language removed during Senate consideration of the legislation. Another provision that remains a concern to some is one that contains language providing that States and Indian tribes will be responsible for determining which professional employees are needed to carry out the preservation duties within their jurisdiction. Debate on professional standards continue within the preservation community, and any changes to this area I believe are best handled after that debate is concluded and agreement is reached. Mr. Speaker, the bill will also allow States and Indian tribes to decide which professional positions are needed to address their specific needs. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from West Virginia that his eloquent statement has been well taken. I am sure my good friend from the other side of the aisle, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and myself will definitely look into the wordage of not only the report but the language itself to make sure that it does not reflect the kind of example that you have just shared with us this afternoon.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which was introduced by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), and reported favorably by the Committee on Resources by voice vote. I note that a companion bill sponsored by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado has already passed the Senate. In essence, Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for a boundary adjustment of 84 acres in the Routt National Forest in Colorado. The Forest Service would acquire an inholding which they consider to be a worthy addition to the National Forest. In exchange, the private property owner will receive an equal number of acres which are currently occupied under a special use permit. The bill deems this to be an equal value exchange based on assurances from the Forest Service that the land values are approximately equal and that the exchange is in the public interest. Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any opposition from this side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.