Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this measure is a minor but symbolically important bill designed to underscore support for the establishment of the European Union by according its central bank legal rights within the United States that are accorded the central banks of individual Nation states. The European Central Bank is an independent legal entity owned by the central banks of the European Union member states, and was established in 1998 in accordance with the provisions of the treaty creating the European Union itself. Significant portions of the ECB's foreign reserves are held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York as well as private banks in the United States. While the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act extends immunity to foreign central banks, the ECB's immunities under this act are not assured because of the ECB's unique status resulting from its multinational ownership. Although the International Organizations Act extends to international organizations the same immunity enjoyed by foreign governments, for the purpose of this act, the reference to ``international organizations'' only includes organizations to which the United States is a member; and of course, the United States is not a member of the EU. In January of this year, I introduced this legislation to protect the legal security of the ECB's foreign reserves by amending the IOIA by designating the ECB, all of which is a mouthful, as an international organization for the purposes of this act. A significant number of other organizations of which the United States is not a member have been designated in this way, including the Organization of African Unity, the European Space Agency, and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The extension of immunity provided by the IOIA to the ECB would assure the protection of their foreign reserves equivalent to that enjoyed by other foreign central banks. If we refuse the ECB request, we would, in effect, penalize monetary unions exercising sovereign Central Bank functions by, among other things, making the ECB vulnerable to private litigation. In this context, providing the ECB this status is entirely equitable and reasonable and amounts to the kind of mutual accommodation that we should be emphasizing at a time when so much friction is building between the United States and the European Union on a host of commercial and political issues. Indeed, in a historical context, the United States, in effect, created a monetary union when we replaced the original Articles of Confederation with a Constitution that restricted the capacity of individual States to tax each other. The European Union wisely matched this step 2 centuries later, and the newly created European Central Bank is an emanation of this daring initiative. It is incumbent on those on this side of the Atlantic to express our support and respect for this historical movement and for the institutions necessary to make it a cohesive success. The Committee on International Relations approved H.R. 3656 by a voice vote on March 20. The Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and the Department of State are in strong support of the legislation. I recommend an ``aye'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just conclude with my appreciation for the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) and his thoughtful approach to all issues of the day. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my 1-minute speech.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House, it is my honor to welcome and extend appreciation to the Reverend Dr. Paul Smith for delivering the opening prayer this morning. Dr. Smith is the senior pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Brooklyn and a faculty member of the New York Theological Seminary. A scholar, Dr. Smith has written extensively on issues of integration and is considered one of the world's leading authorities on multicultural training and arbitration. He has negotiated labor management agreements related to sweatshops in South America and China and conducted sensitivity training for the New York City Police Department, various churches, universities and the Federal Government, including the IRS. Given the tensions in the world in which we live and not incidentally the fractious body in which we work, Reverend Smith's presence and prayer is much appreciated.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, one of the profound issues in world affairs today relates to the widespread perception abroad that the United States has become so disproportionately powerful that we need no longer be constrained in our actions by international rules, treaties, and even traditional security partnerships. This perception has helped fuel mistrust of American motives and resentment of American power, potentially hobbling the effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy at a critical juncture in world politics. In many respects, controversy surrounding the new International Criminal Court is an apt symbol for this debate. The International Criminal Court, which came into being on July 1, will be the first global permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute the most heinous individual violators of human rights--genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The United Nations, many human rights organizations, and many U.S. allies have expressed support for the new court. The Administration, however, strongly opposes it and has renounced any U.S. obligations under the treaty. Although the U.S. has several valid concerns about the ICC--chiefly that the ICC might become politicized and capriciously assert jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers or high officials charged with ``war crimes''--our belligerent opposition to the Court also carries obvious downside risks to American leadership. America's well-deserved reputation as a champion for human rights and extension of the rule of law has been called into question. Our efforts to play hardball in the UN Security Council by threatening to withhold support for UN peacekeeping missions unless the U.S. is granted immunity from the ICC alienated friends and allies abroad. The withholding of military assistance to members of the ICC may be seen as an attempt to undermine the court and influence the decisions of other countries to join the ICC. By demanding special treatment in the form of immunity from the ICC, the US may be seen as bolstering the perception of its preference for a unilateral approach to world affairs and a determination to operate in the world exclusively on our own terms. As a result, U.S. efforts to build coalitions in support for the war against terrorism as well as the enforcement of UN resolutions against Iraq may have been impaired. Mr. Speaker, as an early advocate for the establishment of a permanent international criminal court based on balanced recognition of international statutes, I confess to being chagrined both at the inability of the international community to accommodate legitimate American concerns, and the all-or-nothing approach of our government that has left us without effective means to ensure that the ICC operates in ways that are consistent both with credible rule of law principles and with sensitivity to U.S. interests designed to advance democratic governance. The problem is that as a great power called upon to intervene in areas of the world or disputes such as the Balkans, Afghanistan and troubled areas of the Middle East, the U.S. is vulnerable to charges being leveled against actions which we might reasonably consider to be peacekeeping, but another power or government might charge to be something very different. For instance, what would happen if Serbia were to bring a case against an American naval pilot when such a pilot is operating under both a U.S. and NATO mandate? The President has suggested we should, exclusive of all other countries, be allowed a veto over applicability of international law with regard to the ICC. Many other countries, including strong U.S. allies, have angst about this demand because they see this approach as establishing the principle of one country being entitled to operate above the law. This is not an unresolvable dilemma. When the ICC treaty was under negotiation, it was the assumption of many that the Security Council where all the permanent members have a veto would play a determinative role in bringing matters before the ICC. If such was the case, the U.S. could fully protect itself as could the other permanent members. Unfortunately, because the past administration played a confused, ambivalent role in development of the treaty, it failed to get this common sense approach adopted and put the new administration in the embarrassing position of objecting to an important treaty because of the failed diplomacy of its predecessors. Based on discussions with representatives of several governments sympathetic to the U.S. dilemma it is my understanding that there may be an inclination to seek a reasonable compromise on treaty language, even at this late date. It would appear to be an umbrage to many countries to craft a provision excluding the U.S. alone from ICC jurisdiction, but it would seem not unreasonable on a process basis to return to a Security Council role. On this basis the U.S. and the international community should be credibly protected. The court would function as a treaty organization founded on state consent, while respecting Security Council authority to refer any matters affecting international peace and security to the court's jurisdiction. This approach has the advantage that it does not make a pure exception for the United States. Understandable concerns about inequitable protection of the nationals of permanent members of the Council would need to be balanced against the enhanced durability and legitimacy of the institution. Mr. Speaker, I have long believed that laws, to be effective, must constrain governments in their foreign policies as well as individuals in domestic acts, and that in order to hold governments accountable there must be individual accountability at the highest as well as lowest levels of society. Justice must be brought to the international frontier or life for too many will, in Hobbes' piercing phrase, continue to be ``nasty, brutish, and short.'' Creation of an ICC is a step in the direction of evolving international society but it only makes sense if the United States is able to join without concern for the legitimate exercise of its global responsibilities. The United States should thus seek revision or a protocol to the treaty ensconcing a Security Council role. Such an approach would achieve American objectives without calling for exclusive consideration.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to invite the attention of my colleagues to a sea change that is taking place in our political life, a change uncontemplated by our founders: the nationalization of campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives. Our founders envisioned a Congress made up of members obligated to represent the interests and views of widely diverse constituencies. But as money has become the lever of influence and as that money now comes from national sources, candidates are finding themselves indebted more to those who play the slot machines of influence than those they attempt to influence--i.e., the voter. Many active in American politics may take this money game development for granted and may even welcome it, but this change has profound ramifications for our experiment in self government that deserve careful consideration. As we all know, the Constitution sketches the outlines of the House in Section 2 of Article 1. What the founders had in mind for the body is perhaps summed up best by Madison in Number 57 of The Federalist Papers: ``The House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.'' The late Speaker Tip O'Neill's dictum ``all politics is local'' and our referral to this place as ``the people's body'' symbolize this fundamental understanding of the nature and purpose of the House. Modern campaigning, with its emphasis on image and short, simple messages, and its use of television to project these images and messages, combined with the role of special interest money in financing increasingly expensive House contests, is in danger of severing this defining relationship between Members and their constituents. At risk is the disenfranchisement of the American voter. In 2002 several factors have combined to make my home state of Iowa a microcosm of this troubling development. This is the first election following the Constitutionally-mandated decennial census and resulting reapportionment of the House. In Iowa, re-Districting properly is not the incumbent protection process it is in most states. Rather, the state's constitution requires that Iowa's ninety-nine counties be grouped together in a configuration that distributes the population most evenly among the five Congressional Districts without dividing a single county. This approach should and has in the past meant a renewal of political life in the state, with a new alignment of districts revitalizing the state's body politic. This year the district realignment process worked well. The question now is whether the outside interest groups involvement has mushroomed to such an extent that the nature of our state's congressional elections have changed in such ways as to incentivize negativity and reward the kind of campaigning designed to appeal to the lower instincts of human nature. The slim margins of control in both bodies of the national legislature, the protection extended to incumbents and therefore the status quo in other states, a close gubernatorial contest and a hotly contested Senate seat, the closeness of the last presidential election in the state and the pivotal role the Iowa caucuses will play in the 2004 race for the White House, have all combined to make Iowa a principal battleground on which this year's political fight is being waged. As a consequence, money has been pouring into the state from national special interest PACs. Our airwaves have been jammed with radio and television ads, both positive and now increasingly negative in nature, purchased at already exorbitant and rapidly escalating cost. Mailings from campaigns and parties cram the state's mailboxes and politicians from across the country flock in droves to the Iowa, ostensibly to assist this or that candidate, but certainly to boost their own ambitions for leadership positions in Congress or on the broader national stage. In addition, interest groups from across the political spectrum are making ``independent expenditures'' on behalf of Iowa candidates in unprecedented numbers. These efforts, whether positive of negative nature, in the form of newspaper, radio or television ads, mailings or the sending in of workers to forward a candidate or cause, are by law without the knowledge, much less the control, of the campaigns effected by them. What is being lost in this cacophonous war of political words and images is the voice of individual Iowans, that to which Members and candidates for the House are charged principally to attend. As many of you know, I have been an advocate of radical campaign finance reform throughout my tenure in the House. Since first seeking public office, I have refused contributions from special interest PACs and accepted support only from individual Iowans, limiting that to half what is allowed by law. I have regularly offered to enter into agreements with my opponents to limit campaign spending and just as regularly been rebuffed, as I was this year. Moreover, I also have consistently requested that outside groups not make independent expenditures in my races. I have done so this year and would like to reiterate and underscore that request now. Outside interest groups should stay out of what are intended by the Constitution and ought to remain instate voter choices. But as important as it is to me, the shifting nature of modern campaigns is about much more than House races in Iowa. If the trend toward more expensive races and thus heavier financial obligations for candidates is not curbed, Congress will become a legislative body where the small businessman or woman, the farmer, the worker, and the ordinary citizen are only secondarily represented. Whatever the makeup of the 108th Congress, I would hope that it will give a high priority to finishing the work of campaign finance reform that this Congress so imperfectly began.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring an icon of American politics, John B. Anderson. John is someone about whom the traditional appellation we apply to one another here could not ring more true. He is indeed a ``gentleman from Illinois.'' A member of what commentators are calling ``the greatest generation'' of Americans, John was born in Rockford and, after graduating from the University of Illinois, began his public service as did so many of that generation by enlisting in the field artillery during World War II. As part of democracy's greatest Army, he saw extensive combat in France and Germany. After the war, John joined many of his comrades in returning to school, receiving his JD from the University of Illinois and an LLM from Harvard. A member of the Foreign Service from 1952 to 1955, he served on the staff of the United States High Commissioner for Germany. John's first elective office was that of State's attorney for Winnebago County, Illinois. In 1960, John was elected to Congress, where he represented Illinois' 16th Congressional District with great distinction and signal independence for 10 terms. While a Member of the House, he served on the Rules Committee and, indicative of the esteem in which he was held by his colleagues, for a decade as chairman of the House Republican Conference. While in Congress, John was an unabashed progressive, championing civil rights legislation, advocating open housing and nondiscrimination measures, and promoting campaign finance reform. With Mo Udall, a colleague John and many of us admired greatly, John helped secure passage by the House of the landmark conservation measure setting aside 125 million acres in Alaska, 67 million dedicated to wilderness. In 1980, John challenged the political establishment by running as an independent for President. He ran a spirited, issue-oriented campaign, which in the end garnered over 6 million votes. Since leaving public office, John has taught political science as a visiting professor at some of the Nation's most prestigious colleges and universities and for the past 16 years has taught courses in the electoral process and constitutional law at Nova-Southeastern University Law School in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. True to form, John remains an active challenger to the political status quo. He is a frequent lecturer and commentator on issues of electoral reform, United Nations reform, foreign affairs and American politics. He currently chairs the Center for Voting and Democracy. In February, John turned 80. Keke, his wife of almost 50 years, whose Greek spontaneity provides such a warm complement to John's Scandinavian reserve, their five children and nine grandchildren, along with friends and admirers from across the country, celebrated that milestone and the wonderful career it encompasses last week here in Washington. A soldier, a diplomat, a legislator, a teacher, a big ``R'' Republican and small ``d'' democrat, John Anderson epitomizes the very best in the American political tradition. His congressional career stands as an ornament to the House he served with such progressive vision. His Presidential race remains a model of decency and commitment, a beacon of reasoned positiveness in an era of social division. His service to the public provides the younger generations he continues to instruct living proof of the value of a principled life. It is a privilege to honor John B. Anderson. This gentleman from Illinois is an inspiration to us all. Mr. LaFalce. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor to serve in the House of Representatives for six years with John Anderson, from my arrival in the House in 1975 thru the end of his tenth term in 1981. John Anderson is probably best known for his 1980 run for President as an independent candidate. he garnered 5.7 million votes in his candidacy. While that campaign marked the end of his electoral career, he has remained active in the political arena. Even though he ran for the Presidency more than 20 years ago, he is still recognized by many, including persons who were too young to vote in 1980. When people tell him that he looks like the John Anderson who ran for President, he tells them ``that's what my wife tells me every morning.'' John has been married to his wife Keke for almost 50 years, so she should know. Mr. Anderson, who turned 80 this year, is active with the Center for Voting and Democracy and the World Federalist Association. He is a distinguished visiting professor at Nova-Southeastern University Law School in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Students there benefit from his insights in courses in the electoral process and constitutional law. He has previously taught political science as a visiting professor at numerous universities, including Bryn Mawr College, Brandeis University, Stanford University, Oregon State University and the University of Illinois. It is not surprising that teaching law comes naturally to John Anderson. He received a J.D. degree from the University of Illinois, a LL.M. degree from Harvard University and honorary doctorates of law from Wheaton College and Trinity College. In addition, he served as the State's Attorney for Winnebago County, Illinois from 1956 to 1960, prior to his election to Congress. As a Member who will be leaving Congress at the end of this session, I look forward to staying active in the public policy arena. John Anderson, with his nearly quarter of a century of activity following his departure from the House of Representatives, provides me with a shining example of what can be accomplished after leaving this House.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on the subject of the DeLay and the Leach Special Orders today.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak in his lieu.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, Title IX, the Federal law passed 30 years ago to mandate equality of opportunity for women in intercollegiate athletics, is today a subject for deserved celebration on what it has done for women and understandable dismay for its unintended consequences for certain men's programs. The challenge from a Federal policy perspective is to strengthen the good Title IX has wrought, while eliminating its negative consequences. The good is obvious. Many more women have been given a chance to participate in intercollegiate athletics. But making progress is not the same thing as achieving full equality or advancing adequate opportunity. Nor is obtaining opportunity at the expense of eliminating it for others as positive a social goal as could otherwise be the case. The problem is the distinction in goals of achieving equality and providing opportunity. Simplistically, an institution of higher education can offer no athletic options or, for instance, two women's and two men's teams and be in compliance with Title IX. Hence, in an abstract setting, a school that might offer 12 men's and six women's teams might be considered Title IX compliant if it eliminated six men's programs or if it eliminated three men's and added three women's programs. Instead of adding and subtracting, there would be greater opportunity for women as well as men if such a school opted to achieve equality with addition alone, by offering 12 women's as well as 12 men's programs. Title IX is insufficiently progressive if it is implemented with a subtraction mind-set. It matters where the bar is placed. The lower the sports offerings for men, the less opportunity provided women. In architecture ``less'' might in some cases be ``more,'' but when individual opportunity is at issue, ``more'' is better. Title IX is not just a doctrine of equality, but of equal opportunity. The underlying dilemma with Title IX enforcement is that it has, to date, underemphasized the opportunity quotient implicit in the law. The goal should be equality with increased opportunity. Just as the equalitarian nature of Title IX should be understood as a call for new sports openings for women, the opportunity basis of the law requires upgrading and reemphasizing participation in sports in the education process. There is a trend at colleges and universities that the principal sports experience for students is ``going to'' rather than ``participating in'' intercollegiate athletics. What is needed is a new participation ethic in sports. Athletic Departments are not the same thing as History Departments but they share in common the goal of developing the judgment and character of the individual student. Like band and orchestra and debate, sports teams should be seen as student-centered, not profit- driven. Unfortunately, Title IX has been used by many athletic departments as an excuse to cut sports programs when it should be used to upgrade the role of sports. For one who appreciates what Title IX has started to do for women, yet is dismayed for the loss of so many wrestling, gymnastic, swimming and other men's programs, the question is what, if anything, the Federal government should do. One option would be to mandate colleges and universities to offer particular programs, but such an approach has the obvious problem of intruding on institutional decisionmaking in potentially inappropriate ways. While Title IX may be considered an intrusion by some, its egalitarian character and purpose is socially compelling. The question that remains is how, from a governmental perspective, to put a greater emphasis on the opportunity side of the Title IX equation. My recommendation is 3-fold: (a) Federal and State officials and college administrators should use their positions to call for a greater emphasis on participation in sports in the education experience; (b) Federal guidelines should encourage colleges and universities to meet the Title IX egalitarian premises by adding women's teams without subtracting men's; (c) a new Federal scholar/athletic scholarship program should be established to incentivize colleges and universities to offer greater athletic options. With regard to the third recommendation, I am today introducing legislation titled the ``J. Dennis Hastert Scholar Athlete Act of 2002.'' The act calls for the creation of Hastert athletic scholarships to be granted at the State level to men and women on an equal basis. Qualification criteria would include an emphasis on sports that are part of the Olympic Games or are not significant revenue generators at particular institutions. Sports participation helps build character, initiative, and leadership. This is totally independent of the growing assumption in colleges and universities that athletic departments must be profitable or at least not too expensive. It is, of course, a plus if an athletic department can be self-sufficient, but this should not be an overriding consideration. Indeed, it is remarkable how some of our larger universities which are at the forefront of competitive quality in revenue generating sports often offer far fewer athletic options than smaller colleges and universities which are not driven by a ticket sale mentality. Some see the current emphasis on football to be a significant problem. To be fair, football is expensive, but at Division I schools it can often pay its own way and offset losses elsewhere in athletic budgets. In smaller colleges and universities football is no different than other sports. Its revenues frequently cannot match costs. Indeed, to their credit, six universities in the East offer two full football programs, with one requiring that all participants weigh under a given amount. As a former participant in three college sports where fans often numbered less than team members, I have always been appreciative of administrators who understood that what matters most is love of the sport, not its cost. Wrestling is a classic. Gyms are seldom packed. Fans are appreciated, but those of us who made that walk with butterflies to the center of the mat and stared at an opponent whose arms looked thicker than tree trunks, understood that we wrestled for the competitive challenge and nothing else. Colleges and universities should support sports like wrestling and at the same time press to add women's sports as diverse as basketball, swimming, field hockey, volleyball, softball, soccer, crew, lacrosse, fencing, hockey, tennis, cross country, archery, track and field, golf, water polo and squash. What matters is growth of the individual: the character sport builds, not the remuneration it receives at the gate. I speak personally to this issue because in the end sport is about the sum effect on individuals of the values it imparts--both team discipline and self-reliance. The enemy of opportunity for those interested in participation in low revenue generating sports is neither football nor Title IX's call for gender equality. It is the assumption in too many places that sports are to be encouraged only if they are financially self-sufficient. But from a school's perspective, athletic teams should not be considered burdens. They provide a unique means of advertising the attributes, indeed the existence, of many institutions and a positive way of attracting students in a competitive education environment. It is in this context that the Hastert Scholarship program is proposed as a positive for schools, for students, and for the best of America's athletic ethic. In a tight budget circumstance where it is tempting for colleges to meet Federal gender equality guidelines with a smaller number of teams, the question is whether the government should step in and incentivize sports participation while maintaining the mandate of equal opportunity. My answer is yes. Title IX should be about building up without tearing down.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the distinguished vice chairman of the committee.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the author of this resolution and the leader in Congress on so many Korean issues.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 213, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the plight of North Korean refugees. In this regard, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of three Members of the House who have been instrumental to bring this resolution to the floor: The principal sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the U.S.-South Korean Interparliamentary Exchange, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), who traveled to North Korea as a staffer for the Committee on International Relations and who recently chaired a Congressional Human Rights Caucus briefing on the subject and, of course, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific. The subcommittee has become increasingly concerned about a trio of increasingly significant humanitarian and foreign policy issues that have arisen as a direct consequence of North Korea's inhumane and failed system of governance, all of which have important implications for the United States and the international community: Refugees, acute food shortages and human rights. This May the subcommittee held an extensive hearing on the subject, including testimony from experts in the field as well as from several North Korean defectors, survivors of some of the most challenging rigors of the human condition. Consideration of this resolution is particularly timely, given the recent dramatic increase of North Korean asylum bids through Western embassies in Beijing. It also takes place against the sensitive diplomatic backdrop of renewed North-South dialogue, tentative steps toward reengagement between Tokyo and Pyongyang, and the planned resumption of high-level dialogue between the United States and North Korea. Congress hopes and expects that North Korea will seize the opportunity to demonstrate its sincerity through negotiations and begin to alleviate the concerns of the world community. As we have all come to understand, the world has increasingly become aware that North Korea has been at the center of one of the greatest human rights tragedies in recent decades. Beginning in the mid-1990s, economic collapse and natural disasters combined to produce famine conditions that have claimed as many as 2 million lives, perhaps as many as 10 percent of the population. The food crisis, compounded by repression and mismanagement, led many thousands of North Koreans to cross into China, primarily into Jilin and Liaoning Provinces. Estimates of the number of North Koreans illegally inside China range from official estimates of 10,000 to 30,000, to unofficial estimates of 100,000 to 300,000. Similarly, the flow of North Korean defectors making their way to Seoul also has increased dramatically in recent years. Even for those North Koreans able to escape into China, the struggle to survive is far from over. On the shores of the Tumen River, which is all that separates China and North Korea at one point along the border, more hardship and sorrow await, including potential victimization of human traffickers, unsympathetic neighbors, as well as the police. The PRC's reaction to the influx of North Koreans appears to fluctuate between placid tolerance and bouts of repression. As a matter of principle, Beijing maintains that the North Koreans are economic migrants. In practice, however, local authorities in the past have allowed nongovernment organizations to assist refugees in China, and even turned a blind eye to facilitate their asylum to South Korea through third countries, provided such activities remain low profile. But Beijing also orders periodic crackdowns against refugees and those who assist them. Repatriated North Korean migrants can expect to face a broad range of maltreatment, which may involve beatings, incarceration, and torture. Others, such as asylum-seekers, known religious believers, and high- profile defectors, risk execution or internment in a labor camp for political prisoners. The United States can hardly ignore this situation. Our dilemma is how we can make a modest contribution to this circumstance without exacerbating the lamentable plight of North Koreans in northeastern China. In this regard, and at the risk of presumption, I would like to suggest a five-pronged strategy. First, with regard to North-South relations, we must understand that while attempts to negotiate with North Korea involve an experiment with the bizarre, our unequivocal support for North-South rapprochement and eventual reunification must be maintained as a primary strategic objective in Northeast Asia. In terms of diplomatic efforts and an effort to forge a more lasting and humane resolution for North Korean refugees, the United States should vigorously pursue bilateral and multilateral discussions on that topic with relevant nations and international organizations, including China, South Korea, Japan, Russia, Mongolia, and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. The United States should increase humanitarian assistance to North Koreans both outside and inside their country of origin. In China, we should fully and visibly support the UNHCR in its efforts to gain access to refugees in the northeast of China. Humanitarian assistance to these refugees must be supported. Outside of China, we should explore the possibility of establishing short to medium-term facilities for North Korean refugees in other countries in the region, such as Mongolia. Inside North Korea, the United States should maintain and expand its commitment to the World Food Program appeal. In this regard, the WFP has announced that its North Korean program will run out of food in July or August this year unless new pledges are made urgently. World Food Program estimates that some 1.5 million people will not get food because of the shortfall. At the same time, we and other donors should continue strong support for the WFP's efforts to improve its access and food aid monitoring within North Korea. In addition, Congress and the Executive should be open to supporting innovative, small-scale programs to provide food and other humanitarian assistance through United States nongovernment organizations operating in North Korea. From a human rights perspective, we must continue to improve our limited knowledge of human rights and humanitarian conditions inside China, and we should consider funding efforts to systematically interview and debrief the increasing number of North Korean refugees and defectors inside South Korea and elsewhere. From a resettlement perspective, North Korean refugees are currently caught in a legal Catch-22, based on their claim to automatic South Korean citizenship under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Yet, except in high-profile cases, North Korean asylum-seekers are not treated as South Korean citizens at South Korea's embassy and consulates inside China, and thus are routinely turned away. In addition to Chinese blockage, other embassies discourage refugees from seeking asylum in their countries because they regard the refugees as citizens of South Korea where they would not face a reasonable fear of persecution. In this circumstance, where asylum claims are regularly thwarted, we have an obligation to discuss with the South Koreans and Chinese ways all interested parties can work to regularize the treatment of North Korean refugees in China. While the case for pursuing diplomatic approaches in a low-key way may be compelling, the issue itself must be understood as one of the seminal human rights issues of our time. In this regard we have brought this resolution, and in bringing it I would like to quote the words of President Bush. The President has said, and he has been very succinct in this, that even though he considers North Korea as a country which has starved its people while developing weapons of mass destruction, he has been careful to observe that America has ``great sympathy and empathy for the North Korean people. We want them to have food. We want them to have freedom.'' This timely resolution appropriately expresses this sympathy and concern from the people's House to the North Korean people. We urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kindness. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). The House of Representatives is fortunate to have in its midst one of the true experts on a very acute issue in international affairs. (Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 213) expressing the sense of Congress regarding North Korean refugees who are detained in China and returned to North Korea where they face torture, imprisonment, and execution, as amended.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for yielding the time, and I want to express my appreciation for bringing this resolution to the floor. Sometimes we underestimate the role of sport in all of our culture. The fact of the matter is sport is a very important part of all cultures. Soccer/football is somewhat new to these shores in its seriousness, but we are all impressed with this particular set of games. I would like to suggest, having watched the game between Korea and the United States last night, to note how impressed I am at the sportsmanship, at the fanmanship, the notion that thousands and thousands of Koreans supported their team with such enormous enthusiasm. So on behalf of the Congress, I think just as they wave to their team, we ought to wave to South Korea and express our great respect for their hosting of this game and for their great sports ethic.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I favor reform of the estate tax to protect family farmers and small businesses, but I have grave qualms about its elimination for super-sized estates. What is credible is an increase in the estate tax exemption to $5 or 10 million. What is undue and unfair is the elimination of the tax on huge estates. From a legislative perspective, the circumstance is clear cut. The House has the option of passing an approach which the Senate will ignore or it can pass a credible reform which has a chance of becoming law and taking effect this year. The Democratic alternative to the House Republican position is not sufficiently progressive, but passage of the $3 million exemption it calls for would be a significant improvement on the current circumstance and holds the prospect of immediate compromise with the Senate at a somewhat higher level. The problem with current law, which the bill before the House today would make permanent, is that it provides for a sudden elimination of all estate taxes in the year 2012, but because of its graduated provisions does not allow for the estate tax exemption to reach $3 million until 8 years from now. The American market system works best as a meritocracy. What will be created with the elimination of estate taxes on super-sized estates is a monied oligarchy. This is neither good for our economy nor our democracy.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this resolution, with reservations. I will vote for it because the opposite perspective would be inexplicable. However, I have reservations on process and substantive grounds. This resolution is pressed in this body at this time, without administration support and without review by the committee of jurisdiction, all apparently because of concern that the Senate might competitively address the issue before the House. Substantively this resolution is unbalanced, untimely, and potentially counterproductive to the foreign policy interests of the United States and, implicitly, the viability of the State of Israel. It is the case that this Congress must unequivocally support the existence of the state of Israel. This is a moral imperative. But if Israel is to provide security for its people, it must recognize that the Palestinian people, despite a leadership that has misserved it, have legitimate aspirations. There can be no security for either Israelis or Palestinians unless fair and equitable borders are established delineating both a Palestinian and Israeli state. This resolution asserts a common U.S.-Israeli position on terrorism. The more difficult quid pro quo is to come: The expectation that if the United States and international community broker a credible peace agreement, the Knesset will seize the future and rise above the politics of the moment. We in this body can express with ease, and perhaps too much glibness, rhetorical concerns of the nature contained in this bill. What will be quantumly more difficult is for the Knesset and the Palestinian Authority to reach an accord that can provide for a future of peace and stability. Parties in the region simply must demonstrate more courage and more balanced judgment than this Congress is doing today.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Shays-Meehan bill with some reluctance. It is too little, too late, too compromised. Nonetheless it represent a credible step to constraining one of the worst abuses in our current system, the rising tide of soft money. At issue is the shape of American democracy; at issue also is the shape of our political parties. There is a question of balance of power between the parties, but shape matters too. Do we want our parties dependent on the big and powerful or the individual citizen? The system needs reform; so do the parties. In a new-fangled world, what is needed is old-fashioned politics, old-fashioned political parties, old-fashioned people-oriented representation. The case for Shays-Meehan is imperfect, but it is also compelling.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Let me first express my appreciation for the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and of course the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) on this issue. There should be no doubt that the United States confronts two wars simultaneously. One is the war on terrorism, waged with the scourge of biological weapons. The other is war on the devastating disease that is pandemic in so many poor parts of the world. Einstein once said that splitting the atom has changed everything save our mode of thinking. Atom-splitting produced the potential for great good through nuclear energy, and the potential for great harm through weapons of mass destruction. Now, the splitting of genes has come to symbolize an even greater change: the biological discoveries that promise to enrich and lengthen life on the one hand, and the possibility of biological weapons on the other that jeopardize life itself on the planet. What we must be about is constraining the forces of evil and expanding the forces of life. We cannot win the war that terrorism has brought to our shore without waging with equal vigor the war on disease everywhere that it exists.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 242, the concurrent resolution under consideration.