John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Just in closing, I would like to also thank again our ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings], for the bipartisan manner in which this legislation has been handled. I am pleased that we could participate in this Corrections Day in this manner and make a correction to legislation in a bipartisan fashion. It shows, first, that the Congress does work; and, second, that the government system does function when we see a problem that can be corrected, when we are all rowing in the same direction. So I am pleased again for the leadership provided by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] in introducing this legislation and the bipartisan support we have had in passing this legislation today, bringing it before the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins], the distinguished author of this legislation.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today and at this time is a time we have designated for technical corrections. This is a procedure that was instituted by the Republican leadership when we assumed majority control of the Congress, and it is an effort to try to expedite legislation technical in nature but necessary for the conduct of business both for the Congress and in the operation of our Federal Government, and that is the purpose of our proceedings here this morning. Today we take up a bill in rapid order. It has moved through our Subcommittee on Civil Service and through the full Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to the floor today in rapid time and was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins]. And let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill, H.R. 1316, addresses an inequity in the Federal Government Employees Group Life Insurance program. Under current law, domestic relations orders such as divorce decrees or property settlement agreements do not affect the payment of life insurance proceeds. Instead, distribution of the proceeds is controlled by statute. When the policyholder dies, the proceeds are paid to the beneficiary designated by the policyholder, if there is one, or to other individuals specified by statute. H.R. 1316, which again is introduced by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins], amends the law to require that the Office of Personnel Management should pay the proceeds in accordance with certain domestic relations orders or court-approved property settlements. This is similar to the law's treatment of retirement annuities, which the Office of Personnel Management must also allocate in accordance with divorce decrees. The bill also allows courts to direct an employee to assign the policy to a specific individual identified in a domestic relations order or court-approved property settlement agreement. Thus, employees will not be able to frustrate these orders by terminating the policy. Mr. Speaker, the technical corrections made in this legislation, H.R. 1316, provide a greater protection for former spouses of Federal employees and children of previous marriages. This bill has a broad bipartisan support, and I want to take just a moment to commend the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings], the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, for his work and leadership in expediting this legislation. I also want to thank other members of the committee, including the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas], our vice chairman, and others who are not on the committee, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], and others who have supported expediting of this legislation to benefit our Federal employees. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to comment that I have committed to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] who indeed is a leader in civil service issues, to address the problem he has enumerated on the floor today. We look forward to working with him as we move new legislation through the Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp].

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1316, the bill just passed.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, we hear countless speeches today about taxes. We hear that the debate over taxes is about fairness, it is about special interests, about the struggles of the middle class, about the American dream, about compassion and about justice. Yes, this debate is about all those things. But from my way of looking at things, this debate is principally about freedom. It is not a difficult concept. It is not an idea that requires an advanced degree or lengthy training. It is simply this. If you let people keep more of their own money, they will have more freedom to live their lives as they see fit. Letting people keep more of what they earn will allow Americans to save, to build a better future for themselves and their families, and to realize the American dream. That is what the Republicans have proposed. No more, no less.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, why do we need this deposition authority? First, the scope of this scandal, I submit, is unprecedented in the history of this Congress or any administration, Republican or Democrat. Second, nearly every individual subpoenaed has fled the country or pled the fifth amendment. Third, in an unprecedented fashion, everything possible has been done to block, intimidate, destroy, obstruct, and block this investigation and get to the truth of this matter. The investigative authority sought here today is no different than what the Democrats had under Iran Contra and October Surprise. Congress, the American people and responsible media should be outraged that this administration and certain members of the other party are trying to close down this investigation and this outrageous corruption of our political process. What every American should be asking is, why are they trying to block this investigation? Why are they trying to keep us from talking to foreign nationals who fled the country and corrupted this process? Why are they trying to keep us from questioning those who have corrupted our elections process on a scale unprecedented in American history? This week brings the latest threat to disrupt and destroy this process. The Democrats have said they will block attempts to grant immunity with those who hope to cooperate.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 204, on a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1057, designating the Andrew Jacobs, Jr. Post Office Building, I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No 206, on a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 985, Eagles Nest Wilderness Slate Creek Addition, I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 205, on a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1058--Designating the John T. Myers Post office Building. I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 207, on a motion to suspend the rules and pass House Joint Resolution 56, celebrating the end of slavery in the United States, I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to hold my tongue on the matter of disaster relief to Americans who have been affected by flood, but I could not help but read today's paper when I saw that the President is sending thousands of troops to build parks and other facilities in Central America as Commander in Chief, that in fact in this disaster relief bill there are billions of dollars for Bosnia, which the President wants to keep our troops in Bosnia, and we have spent tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in building bridges and roads in Bosnia at the behest of the President and his policy. It is my understanding, too, that the President has the authority both to spend money that is in the pipeline to help these flood victims, so that the case that has been made this week is without merit. As Commander in Chief, he could send our troops and military and others and our dollars into this affected area to help those folks. That is the rest of the story.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I believe in all fairness we should consider Slovakia with the other countries this body has determined to be eligible for NATO participation, both last year and this year. The Slovak Republic has a democratically elected parliamentary government which has made marked political and economic progress. This country is a valuable participant in the Partnership for Peace and has contributed to peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and eastern Slavonia. The Slovak Republic is a peaceful, law-abiding country that has instituted judicial and free market reforms. When one takes the time to compare Slovakia's record of democratic and humanitarian achievements with those of other former Eastern Bloc countries, it is clear that Slovakia is equally deserving and meritorious of NATO membership. My colleagues, I took the time to review Amnesty International's 1996 and 1997 reports and the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1996 relating to human rights abuses. I examined Slovakia's record and also the record of some of the other nations which have been recommended for NATO membership, including the Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania. Slovakia had no recorded human rights abuses in these reports. The other countries had the following abuses documented. Czech Republic Freedom of speech and press--so long as you don't talk bad about the Republic or the President. Police abuses continue to be a problem. In March 1995, a reporter was sentenced to 4 months imprisonment for calling the president ``a traitor and a false prophet'' in a newspaper article. (Amnesty) In April 1995, prison officials beat to death a prisoner at Horni Slavkov prison. (Amnesty) In June 1994, a Rom citizen was shot to death by police while being interrogated in detention at Horsovsky Tyn. (State Department) Both the International Helsinki Federation and Human Rights Watch criticized the Government in 1996 and in 1997 for not curbing discrimination and skinhead violence against Romani citizens. Romania The Ministry of Internal Affairs supervises the police-- sporadic reports of human rights abuse by the police have continued. At least 4 prisoners of conscience in 1995 and 1 in 1996. (Amnesty) Many reports of torture and ill-treatment by police, resulting in 1 death in 1995 and 3 in 1996. (Amnesty) In January 1996, Ion Axente was beaten by a police officer outside a bar in Piscu. After he fell to the ground, his face was sprayed with a paralyzing gas and he was kicked severely in the head. That night he went into a coma and he later died in June. (Amnesty) In July 1995, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on the Romanian Government to respect human rights and to end abuses by police and security forces. Robert Radu was reportedly tortured during interrogation in Constanta in January 1995. Allegedly beaten with a club on the arms, legs, and head by a police officer and suffered a fractured shin. The officer reportedly threatened to kill him unless he said that he had injured himself falling down the stairs. (Amnesty) In April 1995, Viorel Constantin was punched and kicked by police officers and civil guards outside a bar in Tandarei. Constanti suffered multiple bruising and scratches on the chest and the back, a cracked collar-bone and a ruptured ear drum. (Amnesty) According to Human Rights Watch, Mircea-Muresul Mosor, a Rom from Comani, was shot and killed in May 1996 while in police custody in Valcele. In July 1996, 3 Romani minors were held for 5 days on suspicion of theft of a watch and were all beaten, leaving severe bruises on the youths' arms and legs. (Both State Department and Amnesty) Many other cases of deaths in custody or deaths reportedly due to police brutality have never been resolved. Free speech is limited by prohibiting ``defamation of the country.'' In 1996, journalists Tana Ardeleanu and Sorin Rosca- Stanescu--convicted of ``seditious libel'' and sentenced to serve prison terms--printed an article that claimed former President Ion Iliescu had been recruited for KGB service while a student in Moscow. (State Department) In 1996, Radu Mazare and Constantin Cumpana--published an article about an illegal contract in the city council-- sentenced to 7 month prison terms (although President Iliescu pardoned them). (State Department) Hungary There continues to be credible reports of police abuses and use of excessive force against suspects. In May 1996, Hamodi Ahmed was assaulted by police officers outside a Budapest restaurant. The officers pushed him against the wall, handcuffed his arms behind his back and beat him. Later at the 5th District Police Station, Ahmed was repeatedly kicked by 5 or 6 other officers. He later required hospital treatment. Also in May 1996 and in Budapest, Istvan Nagy was taken to the 8th District Police Station, where he was hit in the face, beaten and kicked. He later required 3 days hospital treatment for a ruptured ear-drum and injuries to the chest and spleen. His crime: he criticized a police officer who had shouted at an old man for crossing a road too slowly. (Amnesty) In Kunszentmiklos in April 1995, Farkas Geza was punched, kicked and beaten with a rubber truncheon in a police car and in the police station, and a doctor was called in to stop heavy bleeding from his injuries. (Amnesty) In June 1995, Stefan Vasile Chis was arrested in Budapest and was made to stand against the wall with legs spread apart and was kicked from behind in the genitals 3 times. After falling to the ground he was then repeatedly kicked and beaten. Released the next morning, Chis was admitted to a hospital where he underwent a urological operation and was hospitalized for 10 days. (Amnesty) In July 1995 Almasi Laszlo died as a result of a severe beating by police officers who were searching his home in Paszto. (Amnesty) The Hungarian Helsinki Committee reported in 1995 that police misconduct ``* * * takes place every day, although the public is only informed by chance, only in conspicuous cases. Guilty police officers are very rarely condemned, and the majority of the officers suspected of such crimes remain on duty.'' (State Department) Lithuania ``The State Security Department is responsible for internal security and reports to Parliament and the President. The police committed a number of human rights abuses.'' Local press reported that police brutality is becoming more common. In many instances, victims reportedly are reluctant to bring charges against police officers for fear of reprisals. (State Department) Most years the Ministry of Interior refuses to publicize statistics on reported cases of police brutality and in fact has yet to establish an internal affairs group to address this problem. ``Human rights violations continue in the military.'' The chief resident of one of Vilnius's major hospitals stated that soldiers in the army are constantly being treated for injuries resulting from abuse. In the 1st 6 months of 1996, the same hospital treated 4 soldiers for broken jawbones. (State Department) Journalists alleges that government officials apply pressure on them not to criticize governmental policies or acts. Poland Restrictions on freedom of speech and press. Polish Penal Code states that acts that ``publicly insult, ridicule, and deride the Polish nation, the Polish Republic, its political system, or its principal organs are punishable by between 6 months and 8 years of imprisonment.'' (State Department) The Code imposes a prison term of up to 10 years for a person who commits any of the prohibited acts through print or mass media. Let me also include excerpts from the State Department's report on Slovakia's human rights record: Solvak Republic 1996 State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices On human rights abuses: ``There were no confirmed reports of political or other extrajudicial killings by government officials.'' ``There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances.'' The Slovak Constitution specifically prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Constitution specifically prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, and the Government observes their prohibition. On freedom of speech and press: ``The Constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and the Government generally respects this right in practice.'' The Constitution provides for freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and the Government respects them in practice. On freedom of religion: ``The constitution provides for freedom of religious belief and faith, and the Government respects this provision in practice.'' On democracy: ``Citizens have the constitutional right to change their government through the periodic free election of their national representatives.'' ``The law prohibits discrimination and provides for the equality of all citizens. Health care, education, retirement benefits, and other social services are provided regardless of race, sex, religion, disability, language, or social status.'' ``The Constitution provides minorities with the right to develop their own culture, receive information and education in their mother tongue, and participate in decisionmaking in matters affecting them.'' On children's and labor rights: ``The Government demonstrates its commitment to children's rights and welfare through its system of public education and medical care.'' ``The Constitution provides for the right to form and join unions * * *. The law provides for collective bargaining, which is freely practiced throughout the country * * *. Both the Constitution and the Employment Act prohibit forced or compulsory labor.'' While some have been critical of Slovakia's record in this area, a fair comparison with these other countries shows the Slovak Republic has a much better record than any of these candidates. Finally, my colleagues, I strongly believe it would be in the United States' international interests to grant the Slovak Republic NATO membership. Slovakia is strategically and geographically located in Eastern Europe and occupies an area which may be vital to ensuring security for our fellow NATO allies against future aggression. It is my hope that we will move in the near future to make the Slovak Republic eligible for NATO participation and permit this country to join the league of nations which stand together in mutual defense and international security.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for yielding me this time. Quite frankly, I say to my colleagues, I regret that this bill picks winners and losers in the quest to join NATO, as was pointed out by the ranking member of the committee. I personally believe that Slovakia should be and should have been selected for NATO admission in the first round last year, and certainly should be included this year. Unfortunately, this whole process has become a popularity contest rather than a well- considered international security consideration. Let me submit for the Record comments relating to Slovakia's readiness to join NATO. Nicholas Burns of the State Department said April 17, 1997, ``The Slovak Republic has made impressive economic progress in four years since independence, and is cooperating fully in Partnership for Peace. We have also been gratified by the Slovak Republic's contribution to peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Eastern Slavonia.'' Just a few days ago, Speaker Gingrich said in the Washington Times, ``I do not think there is any sense to exclude Slovakia.'' My grandfather was born in Slovakia and the Slovaks are a patient and peaceful people. They have been free and independent for only 4 years. They were oppressed for 1,000 years. They will wait patiently for a little while longer to take their rightful place in NATO, and I hope that we can support that effort in the future.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned that the Federal Aviation Administration is an agency in disarray, at best. In fact, at worst, it is an unpiloted craft without any direction. The primary mission of the Federal Aviation Administration is to ensure airplane and passenger safety and security. Last year, after the explosion of TWA flight 800, FAA tightened security at all U.S. airports. Airports spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to change parking and cars were towed when vehicles were left unattended. Some of the harassment of the traveling public became, in fact, absurd. Finally, after assurances that no immediate terrorist attack was underway, FAA allowed our airports and the traveling public some more reasonable approaches to airport parking and passenger access. Now, months after nearly all evidence points to a mechanical failure as the cause of TWA flight 800, FAA continues to harass the American traveling public with several dumb and totally unproductive procedures. Regulations still require that passengers are asked these questions: First, ``Have you packed your own luggage or bag?''; and second, ``Has your baggage or luggage been in your possession at all times?'' Now, I ask what flaky half-baked terrorist or terrorist accomplice would answer these questions legitimately? Should a passenger honestly confess to this interrogation, they should be cautioned because they will be searched, harassed, and subject to Gestapo-like interrogation. Mr. Speaker, the loss of life as a result of domestic air terrorism does not even rank as a cause of airline fatalities, yet FAA spends untold resources enforcing, fining, and monitoring this outdated requirement. All this is done in spite of the fact that TWA flight 800 exploded due to a mechanical failure. In addition to asking the unproductive questions I mentioned, ticket agents must see a photo ID. I submit that not since the fall of the former Soviet Union have American domestic airline passengers or any passengers been subject to similar photo ID requirements. Now, showing your photo ID at the ticket counter sure does a lot of good. Any fool could check in at a ticket counter, pass their ticket on to another passenger, who would then board the airplane. Now, if the passenger was required to show a ticket, a name, and photo ID as you boarded the airplane with your ticket coupon, that might match the passengers with the ID's that they present. Here again, FAA makes airlines and passengers jump through useless and needless hoops. Agents and airlines are fined if they fail to comply. My response when I wrote the FAA, when I questioned and protested these ridiculous regulations, are actually dumber than the requirements FAA has mandated. Why not dedicate FAA personnel, energy, and funding for really improving airline safety and security? We know the causes of almost every fatal domestic airline crash with certainty except for several cases, and the FAA knows them. One is a problem with 737's. These models carry a tremendous number of passengers. And there are two airline crashes, one in Pittsburgh and the other United, in Colorado, crashes because of problems with their rudders and their stabilization. FAA should be paying attention to this problem. Even in spite of Vice President Gore's announcement in 1996, simulation training and retrofitting of 737's could be expedited rather than taking 2 years as now planned. Further research and resources could be devoted to finding the mechanical problems that downed TWA flight 800 and killed 229 people. After 10 years, FAA has blown billions of dollars and still failed to upgrade our outdated 1950's air traffic controller system. And after numerous fatal crashes of imported commuter planes, FAA has still not begun to crack down on these imported aircraft. Let us put the emphasis where it should be. Let us get FAA together.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a rule here on a tuna- and-fish bill. Everyone knows there is something fishy and something wrong with campaign financing as we know it. I think this side wants to change it. The problem is that the other side and the White House, even as we speak here today, have not done much to cooperate in the investigation to see what is wrong with current campaign financing. Even as I am here, documents are being delivered from the White House. Today we were about to question and hold in contempt the White House legal counsel because month after month they have refused to cooperate with us. They said they were going to give us documents and did not until that pressure was applied. So we want campaign finance reform, we want to improve the system, we want to work with the other side, and we know we can and must do a better job. But we should at least have the cooperation that we have had to elicit out of the other side by force, unfortunately, today.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, today I will introduce the Military Health Care Choice Act of 1997. Under this bill, the families of our service men and women and military retirees and their families will be able to choose a health plan in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program in lieu of military health care. This reform is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because for these individuals the military health care system is broken. In 1994, General Shalikashvili acknowledged this. He said the military health care system covering them is--and I quote--``headed toward a cliff.'' Last year, the Civil Service Subcommittee, which I chair, held a hearing on improving access to health care for military families. We heard horror stories describing the problems the current military health care system has caused military families. One witness was the wife of an Air Force Master Sergeant. When she became pregnant, she chose the hospital at Andrews Air Force Base to care for her and deliver her baby. But just 5 weeks before her due date, she was told that Andrews would no longer treat her or deliver her baby. There was a quota on deliveries at Andrews, and hers would be over the limit. She was left on her own to find doctors who were qualified under CHAMPUS and would accept CHAMPUS fees and to make arrangements for the delivery. Another witness, the widow of a retired marine major, described the substandard care her husband had received under the system for military retirees. Her terminally ill husband was initially denied cancer medication because the VA hospital treating him said it would rather spend $3,000 on aspirin for 3,000 men than on chemotherapy for one. When the witness herself needed surgery for possible breast cancer, she needed the permission of the military base near her home. The base said no, but provided no military alternative. She had the surgery done, but she and her husband had to foot the bill. Mr. Speaker, the hearing record contains many more such examples. I urge my colleagues to read it. Just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I learned of yet another atrocious example from a military retiree. For 3 years, his wife had been treated by a VA hospital for a series of debilitating brain tumors. Then, on a cold, wet, windy night, that hospital refused to treat her when she was seriously ill, and demanded that she go to an army hospital 12 miles away. The VA hospital refused to call an ambulance, and even threatened to have her and her husband arrested for trespassing when he resisted leaving. Her husband drove her the 12 miles to the Army hospital through a raging rain storm. The Army hospital also refused to treat her, sending her back to the very VA hospital that had turned her away. She was then admitted to that hospital and spent 3 weeks in intensive care. This retiree also points out that his copayments under the military health care systems can reach as high as $7,500--pretty tough medicine on his $13,000 annual income When we needed them, these individuals did not ration their devotion to duty and to the Nation. When they need us we must not ration their health care. I urge Members to join me in making this benefit available to those whom we owe so much.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, if ever in the history of this Congress a program of this Federal Government that needs reform cried out for more reform, it is this whole area of job training and education, employment training and literacy enhancement. First I want to salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] for their work in crafting this proposal. Our purpose is really to help those without job and without opportunity, particularly those youth. I want to first speak about the bill itself and then oppose the Owens amendment that has been presented here today. First of all, let me just give my colleagues an example from my State of Florida. This is an article that appeared a year ago in February and it talks about job training programs. It said, with all the job training programs in Florida, my State, that we spent $1 billion, Federal and local money. ``Job Training Programs Not Making the Grade'' is the headline of this article. We spent $1 billion and less than 20 percent of those who entered a program completed the program. Of that, 19 percent got a job and most of those, the majority of those, who got a job got a job at minimum or just above minimum wage. A total failure if we are trying to employ people in this country. Then just a month ago in the Washington Post, the city spent $11 million it has received through Federal job training programs. They also raised $7.3 million in local tax dollars designated for job training programs without a single person being trained. This is a program that cries out for reform. What would the Owens amendment do in the area of summer job employment? It would maintain the status quo, the record of failure. The main purpose of this bill in the area of summer job employment is to refocus the programs on providing comprehensive academic and occupational learning opportunities for our disadvantaged youth. I am for getting kids back into school and in addition into providing employment opportunities. That is what this bill is all about. What are those who have had experience saying about this? The National Governors Association, the Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Association of Counties support the agreement reached on this issue that is contained in this bill and oppose a separate stand-alone summer program. They have tried it. It does not work. This is the record of failure. When this Congress asks people on welfare or disadvantaged people to go to work, we want them to have the opportunity to find a job, to learn a skill, and the Federal Government should be helping with a program that works, not with a program that is a failure. This is a record of failure, and this record cannot continue. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Owens amendment. It destroys the intent, the purpose and the experience that we have seen that is a record of failure, and then pass this bill and give our disadvantaged, give our youth, and give the people without a job in this country the opportunity to learn a skill and to earn a living wage and to have the Government be a helping hand rather than a partner that has failed.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, on the following rollcall Nos., had I been present I would have voted: No. 128--``Yes''; No. 129--``Yes''; No. 130--``Yes''; No. 131--``Yes.'' I was unavoidably detained.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, this week in Israel, in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol, and around the world for a few moments the horror of World War II's Holocaust was remembered. ``Never again'' was the theme often repeated. This week in Zaire they removed the corpses of refugees from boxcars, and continued the body count of innocent African men, women, and children. The Rebel Tutsi-dominated army has massacred thousands of Hutu refugees. The modern day slaughter and holocaust of Rwanda is being repeated in Zaire. While I strongly support our former colleague and present U.N. Ambassador's role in seeking peace in this war-torn region of Africa-- Ambassador Richardson--every American and world citizen and every holocaust survivor must also seek justice. Today we cannot turn our backs or look the other way as they did five decades past. In Africa, those responsible for murder, genocide, and slaughter must be brought to justice. This Congress, our Nation, and the United Nations should not rest while this slaughter in Africa continues. If not, the words of yesterday's Holocaust remembrance will, both today and tomorrow, have a hollow ring.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to, as we close up, remind folks that what this experiment in Switzerland, a beautiful country, you think of the Swiss Alps and mountain chalets and peaceful living. Let me read from this. In one park, the number of addicts grew to 15,000 daily that came for free needles. Switzerland, again, a placid European tranquil State, Switzerland now has the highest heroin addiction rate in Europe and the second highest HIV infection. That is with the free needles, with the free heroin. So they have tried it. It is a disaster for their people. We are joining their people who are now calling for a referendum to repeal this. Again, a good example of a program that went bad. So I join my colleagues in whatever pressure we need to put on the Swiss, United States interests, we will do that. We are not going to let what happened there happen here, and this is the evidence as to why we should not let that take place.

Mr. MICA. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois, chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. I want to take a moment and particularly thank him for his leadership. I remember last week we had a discussion on the floor about the progress of this session of Congress and one of my colleagues said, well, what have you done about drugs on this side of the aisle, commenting to us, and that we had not done enough. I had to remind the gentleman that just in the few months of this session under the leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois, we have held more hearings than were held in the entire first Congress when I came from 1993 to 1994, my first term, that the leadership that Chairman Hastert has provided is unprecedented. He has had before his subcommittee that oversees national drug policy just in the past few months the drug czar for very lengthy, in fact many hours of questioning not only in formal hearings but numerous meetings, countless meetings and work and cooperation with the drug czar. With this administration, he has had the Director and Administrator of DEA before the committee, very lengthy discussions, hearings. Another member and leader of this issue is the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], who has had legislation to bring together the efforts of local government, community-based organizations that are combating illicit drugs and drug abuse and working to promote prevention and education in our communities. He has had hearings already on his legislation, and his proposal and funding of that proposal that is probably the most effective way of combating drugs with those successful community-based programs, not to mention other work. My colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], who chairs the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing recently in San Juan Harbor. Our subcommittee, under Chairman Zeliff, who chaired the subcommittee last year, held a similar hearing. We were trying to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. The programs of interdiction, the programs of enforcement, the programs of military cooperation, the involvement of our Coast Guard, the whole picture was destroyed in 2 years when the other body took office, other party took office, the executive office, and then controlled both the House and the other body, and we have seen the results of it. And I have a selfish interest in this. I have children. I come from central Florida, a beautiful area, and I held up in the last year this headline from the Orlando Sentinel: ``Long Out of Sight, Heroin is Back Killing Teens.'' Central Florida, tranquil, prosperous area; we are not talking about ghettos or urban settings of Los Angeles, New York, Detroit. We are talking about peaceful, central Florida where heroin is epidemic, where our children are literally dying in the streets, and under the leadership of Chairman Zeliff and others who are here tonight came into our community last fall and held an intensive hearing, and helping us get back on track. Then the problem has not stopped, and the problem continues, and this is last week's Orlando Sentinel article: ``Orlando No. 2 in Cocaine Deaths.'' This is just last week. One thousand eleven people died, up 7 percent in Florida, from cocaine; over a thousand potentially useful children, fathers, mothers, their lives destroyed because of what is going on. And part of this does relate back to this policy of just say maybe. I am very concerned about what I have heard, what the chairman has outlined tonight, this policy that we have seen in Switzerland of just say try it. Now we have an administration in this country that appointed a national health officer, the Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders, who said just say maybe, and we see where it has gotten us today with epidemic use of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines, designer drugs with our youth, and now we have a good example that the chairman has brought before the Congress tonight, a very bad thing that happened in another country when the Swiss Government, in fact, said just say try it, and they tried it, and the result is a disaster. So there are those now that want to legalize drugs that say this is the panacea, and we see the experience of this country, and it is not a Third World country. It is Switzerland, a very sophisticated country, very sophisticated economic system, and we are not talking again about just urban problems, but they have tried it, it does not work, and their people are demanding a referendum, and the referendum is called Youth Without Drugs, and they intend to repeal this government policy. So those who would like to say just say maybe, or just say try it, we have a great example of a bad reaction to a program that did in fact fail. Now it is easy to come and to criticize what has been done, and we make no bones that we are not pleased with what happened in the first 2 years of the past administration here. But what have we done? And let me tell you when the new majority took this responsibility on, that the current Chair, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], was appointed by the leadership to direct a House-wide effort to coordinate all the resources of the House of Representatives and the various committees of jurisdiction to again put Humpty-Dumpty back together again to make certain that interdiction was restored, to make certain that our military and our Coast Guard had the capability to become involved, to make certain that the eradication programs and these source countries were restored, to make certain that treatment programs were not just spending a great deal of money but we were concentrating on putting the money into effective treatment programs. And then education, which is so important, that other part of this four-legged stool, that that in fact also be properly funded and addressed, and the programs that are a success that had the support of this Congress. So the Speaker of the House of Representatives appointed Mr. Hastert. Now we are privileged to have him chair this Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, national security, international affairs, criminal justice, that has authority over our drug policy, and each of the elements have in fact been restored. He has fought to get the funds back so that the military can become involved in this. He has restored the cuts. The first thing President Clinton did was cut the drug czar's office and staff and capability, and he has worked to restore that office. He has worked to bring the Coast Guard back into the action on some of the heroin that is coming into this country. He worked to bring to the floor the first decertification measure ever heard in the House of Representatives or ever passed by the House of Representatives. So he has helped to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again, and he brings to the floor tonight, to the attention, Mr. Speaker, of you and our colleagues a great example of a bad experiment, and that was to just say try it, to just legalize drugs. Switzerland tried it, it is a disaster. We do not need to be listening to those voices. So again, Mr. Speaker, I salute the gentleman on what he has done and the leadership he has brought to this issue and to our Congress. He has done a remarkable job.

Mr. MICA. If the gentleman will yield, I was quite shocked about this Swiss experiment, and I have also been a harsh critic of the lax attitude by both our President and this administration on the question of even a casual drug use, and that is not only translated into what our kids have heard in our country, but I was stunned to find out and get a copy of a billboard which is in downtown Zurich, Switzerland. I do not know if my colleagues and the Speaker can see it, but this billboard in downtown Zurich says in German, and I will translate it; it says ``Bill Clinton used one marijuana joint, and look, he's not a junkie. What's the big deal?'' And this is the kind of justification and commentary that was used to support this legalization effort in Switzerland in billboards, and here's a copy of one in Zurich, and I think that that is a sad commentary, and this program again has been such a failure that the Swiss are demanding that it be repealed. But when we have the leader of our administration sending the wrong signals by appointing a chief health officer, by saying that he might inhale, and then this is translated into support for a program in another country that is used for justification of legalization, we have the big problem. So they have tried it, it does not work. Their countrymen are asking for this to be, for this program to be repealed, and we see a bad example that should not be repeated in this country. The other thing, too, is the lax attitude is really creating even more problems in this country. There is a report just released by the Partnership for a Drug-free America and these statistics are startling. There are key findings of 9- to 12-year-olds. They found in this Partnership Study that more teenagers are using drugs. In 1996, last year, one in four children was offered drugs. That is 24 percent of the 9- to 12-year-olds in 1996 compared to 19 percent in 1993. Trial use of marijuana last year increased among children from 2 to 4 percent. It is an increase of approximately 230,000 children experimenting in 1995 to 460,000 children experimenting in 1996. Eight percent of sixth graders had experimented with marijuana and 23 percent of seventh graders and 33 percent of eighth graders reported trying drugs. Only 29 percent of parents of children age 9 to 12 are talking to their kids about drugs, and fewer children are receiving information about the dangers of drugs. So what we have done is put drugs on the back burner. We have not sent the right message. In fact, we have sent the wrong message, not only to our children, but now overseas, and we see the results and its tragic consequence in our youth population.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the record the proper interpretation of this legislation as it relates to the judiciary. First, let me address the issue of assigning numerical ratings to applicants who are veterans. As amended, H.R. 240 does not require the judicial branch to employ a numerical rating system or assign numerical points to veterans. Nor does this legislation in any way authorize executive branch agencies to adjudicate complaints within the judiciary. All that H.R. 240 requires of the judicial branch is to provide the same degree of protection. Second, concern was expressed about the appropriateness of the use of the term ``regulation'' for the judicial branch. Its use is appropriate. Although many of the statutes in title 28 regarding the judiciary and judicial procedures use terms such as ``guidelines'' or ``procedures,'' a number also explicitly refer to ``regulations'' issued by the Judicial Conference. For example, 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 153(b), 155(b), 375(h), 1869(k). The use of this term in H.R. 240 is consistent with these statues. To be sure, it is not the intent of this bill to require the Judicial Conference to follow Administrative Procedure Act--like procedures to which they are not otherwise subject. Third, questions have been raised regarding the impact of the provision in this legislation that requires consultation with veterans' service organizations. This provision will not impair the independence of the judiciary. It is my understanding that the judicial branch already consults from time to time with various types of groups such as practitioners who routinely appear before the courts, through the Judicial Conference and through various circuit conferences. Veterans' service organizations have a keen understanding regarding veterans' employment problems and could offer valuable assistance to the Judicial Conference in formulating its policies. Finally, all that is required by this provision is consultation not agreement. None of these organizations would have veto power over any regulations promulgated by the judiciary under this provision of the bill. Mr. Speaker, this concludes my remarks. As previously noted, my purpose in addressing the above issues is to present the proper interpretation of these provisions for the record.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the gentleman if he is aware, regarding comments of the last speaker that this Republican Congress has done nothing on the drug issue, that in fact in the 103d Congress, again, when these folks controlled the House, the Senate, the White House, there was one hearing held. I was on the committee, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, on national drug policy. Since January, we have held more hearings than they held in the entire 103d Congress on drug policy. We have had the drug czar before us. We have had the head of DEA before us. We spent much of the House's time talking about decertifying Mexico. I introduced that resolution with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw]. There has never been before a debate to decertify, to my knowledge, on the House floor a country. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] just held a hearing in Puerto Rico on how they gutted when they controlled all the interdiction around Puerto Rico that is bringing drugs in unprecedented quantity into my district, heroin, and we have held hearings and gotten reports from GAO. Just in 90 days we have done more than they did in an entire session of Congress on the drug issue.