Doug Ose

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with the people of California's 3rd Congressional district to support the expansion of the Calpine Sutter Power Plant, a long-standing business in Sutter County. Sutter County, situated just north of Sacramento between the Sacramento and Feather Rivers, has access to three state universities, a major metropolitan airport, the State Capitol, and recreational areas of the Sierra Mountain Range. However, with double-digit unemployment, a local economy almost solely dependent on agriculture, the lack of adequate power, and the annual danger of flooding in the upper Sacramento Valley, Sutter County also faces many challenges. Today, Sutter County is celebrating the groundbreaking of Calpine's new plant site, which will increase its property tax base by at least $300 million. The new plant will provide clean, low-cost power for economic development, employ up to 250 construction workers for twenty months, create at least twenty new family-wage, full-time jobs, and provide significant revenues to local businesses. Additionally, Calpine has proposed a 10-year, $2.5 million private funding program for improving levees and storm drainage facilities in Sutter County. The funds will be distributed directly to the Sutter County Water Agency and the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, which will have final authority over how the funds are spent. I commend Calpine and people of Sutter County for their commitment and investment in their community through new jobs, increased tax revenue, clean, reliable, low-cost electricity, and willingness to work together toward local flood control solutions. This another example of businesses and communities working together to define a vision and successfully achieve common goals.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the resolution. I would like to take a few moments to discuss the effects of trade on our economy. Whenever trade policy is discussed, people forget the many benefits that free trade bestows on our Nation. Today, tradeable goods represent approximately 30 percent of our gross national product, and the export sector remains one of the shining lights of our economy. Exports have grown rapidly in the last decade, creating thousands of new jobs, and these jobs pay considerably more than jobs that are unrelated to trade. Trade also benefits consumers. As these trade barriers fall, resources are able to flow more efficiently. American companies engaged in international trade become leaner and more competitive. As a result, consumers in all our districts enjoy lower prices and better products. Indeed, the efficiencies created by trade have been a critical component to the economic prosperity we now enjoy. I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to come down. I have listened attentively to the speakers who have preceded me. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Sitting here listening to my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), I am reminded of the scope and breadth of the President's responsibilities. Whoever the occupant of this office is is required to know things related to the minutia of trade agreements to nuclear waste responsibilities, to the minutia again of START contracts, to environmental questions in Antarctica, to what it takes for NASA to put a missile or a space shuttle up in the air. The responsibilities bearing on the occupant of the office of President of the United States are enormous, and we need to compensate this person accordingly. Just for comparison's sake, I wanted to go through a couple of the other countries of the world who also compensate their chief executive. For instance, Hong Kong, arguably a country far smaller than the United States, pays its chief executive over $400,000 a year. The country of Israel, whose economic challenges, security issues and the like and population is nowhere near the breadth and scope of ours, they pay their executive $90,000 a year. Panama, a country that we have a long historical association with, pays its chief executive $180,000 a year. We are currently paying the President of the United States $200,000 a year, essentially equivalent to the amount that the President of Panama is earning. The responsibilities of the President of Panama, are they equivalent to the responsibilities of the President of the United States? On a comparative basis alone, this body should move forward expeditiously to increase the rate of pay for the President of the United States. I also want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). What we pay will be reflected in the quality of the person we get. That is a dictum of business that has been proven year after year, decade after decade, century after century. We need to take advantage to the extent we can. And $400,000 is lot of money, but not for this job. Whoever the occupant of this office is, is gone from their family, loses any semblance of private life, is at the beck and call of the people of the United States, and stands under enormous stress day after day after day. We need to compensate this person appropriately. We need to have people who are good people in this office. We need to pay them to sacrifice their personal lives and come to the service of their country. I think the amendment, however well-meaning, does not serve that purpose; and I oppose it.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this Sacramento Bee article is about Carmichael Congregation Beth Shalom's Rabbi Joseph Melamed, who was set to retire 6 days before his synagogue burned. I would like to read a portion of this article discussing the Rabbi's courage and faith in the midst of this extreme adversity. These are the Rabbi's own words shortly after the arson of his synagogue. ``It is dangerous to society. It is a step backward in our civilization if this is how we are going to conduct our affairs. We declare our enemy without even seeing his face. That to me is an insult.'' Mr. Speaker, let us reflect on the comments of Rabbi Melamed as we vote to condemn these cowardly acts of arson on the House floor today. Retiring Rabbi Teaches Peace, Not Retribution (By Jan Ferris, Bee Religion Writer--Published June 20, 1999) Rabbi Joseph Melamed of Congregation Beth Shalom has lived a life rich in contrast. He was a grade-skipping child prodigy and a teenage paramilitary guard in the waning days of British-occupied Palestine. A lover of literature and an intelligence officer in the Israeli Air Force. A Jew who shed his Orthodox roots early on for a more modern way. Since Friday's arson attack on his Carmichael synagogue, the 65-year-old cleric is once again on divergent paths: Comforter and healer for a congregation felled by hate, and celebrated spiritual leader who--in just six days--will lead his last Sabbath services before retiring. The timing couldn't have been worse. ``We would have preferred a cake and candles,'' Beth Shalom member Don Aron said dryly, as he stood next to the police tape surrounding the building Friday. And yet, because of Melamed's gentle touch, and his ability to turn even the most heart-rending war story or current event into a parable on peace, many temple-goers say they're grateful he's still around. Even in his Shabbat message Friday night, delivered at another area synagogue that loaned worship space, Melamed spoke not of retribution but of the need to ``move ahead toward getting along with everybody,'' said Mozell Zarit, president of Beth Shalom. ``He has a wonderful way of looking at events . . . and to relate them to the world around us,'' she added. Melamed has spent just a decade at Beth Shalom. But in that time, its membership has tripled to 220, with many more young families than in past years. The congregation moved into new quarters, with the words ``The Light of the Lord is the Soul of Man'' emblazoned on the large, brown wall facing El Camino Avenue. Hebrew, Jewish education and other classes for children and adults have flourished. Jeff Levy and his family joined the temple shortly after Melamed arrived, drawn in large part by his warm spirit. Melamed--who earned his doctorate through Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and whose Carmichael living room boasts 13 bookcases--also possesses an ``incredible brain,'' especially on Jewish issues, Levy said. But one of his lasting images of Melamed is of the diminutive cleric who, upon learning that Levy's son has begun studying martial arts, jumped in the air to demonstrate a mock karate kick. ``I'd never seen a rabbi do that before,'' Levy said. ``There's an attraction (to children) there.'' Melamed has three children by his last wife, Rachel. His own childhood was steeped in scholarship. Born in Baghdad, he moved with his family to Jerusalem a few years before World War II broke out. He was sent to heder, Jewish religious school for the young, at age 3. By age 5, he was reading from the Torah, the Hebrew Bible's first five books. He spent one week in first grade and three days in third before fast-tracking to the fifth grade. By high school, Melamed became disenchanted with the ultra-Orthodox brand of Judaism practiced by his family. He began to read Russian, French and other non-religious writers. He fell in love with poetry. He attended high school at night and worked in a bookshop by day to pay his way, distanced from his family by his secular pursuits. When he was 13, Melamed joined Haganah, an illegal paramilitary group that aimed to get the British out of then- Palestine. He learned how to handle grenades, pistols and other weapons. ``The idea of being underground was very appealing, very romantic,'' he recalled Friday, half-jokingly adding, ``It was a way to meet girls.'' When Israel's War of Independence broke out in 1948, Melamed and the other young soldiers in his unit helped guard the outskirts of Jerusalem. His commander was killed by Iraqi troops. ``It was my first encounter with real fear,'' he said of the whole ordeal. Fast-forward a few years. Melamed was working in another bookstore, this time putting himself through college. Rabbinic students from the United States came in once or twice. He was intrigued by their modernity--in contrast to the long beards, head coverings and other Orthodox customs-- and their ability to mesh the sacred and secular. ``You could actually be normal and look like everybody else and be a rabbi. This was not the kind of rabbi I was accustomed to,'' he said. Within two weeks, Melamed was attending Cincinnati's Hebrew Union College, the main rabbinic training ground for the Reform movement, the least traditional of Judaism's three main branches. His first posting was to a synagogue in Panama, whose members were largely descendants of Spanish Jews who secretly kept their faith alive despite mandates to covert during the Inquisition. He stayed in Panama 11 year, helping translate a Reform prayer book into Spanish. He taught Hebrew to the archbishop of Panama, and helped a Catholic university develop a department of Judaic studies. Melamed then went to Congregation B'nai Israel in Frenso. One of the highlights of his decade there: a local TV show, ``A New Forum of Better Understanding,'' than ran weekly for six years, co-hosted by a Protestant pastor and Catholic priest. ``His message to us has never been insular. it's always been the community at large,'' said Jeff Levy. ``When he's talking about the community, he's not just talking about the Jewish community.'' That approach makes events like Friday's arson attack, which caused an estimated $100,000 in damage to Beth Shalom, all the more hurtful and mystifying--especially for Melamed. ``It is dangerous to society. it is a step backward in our civilization if this is how we are going to conduct our affairs,'' said Melamed. ``We declare our enemy without even seeing his face. That to me is an insult.'' With a batmitzvah or coming-of-age ceremony for a teenage congregant Saturday morning, a final service to prepare and packing to do, the rabbi's final days were busy enough. Duty called again at 4 a.m. Friday when he got the phone call bearing bad news. His role, especially in the first days as the shock wears off, is to listen and comfort, he said. ``I have learned one thing: If in a time like this I cannot bring my total bearing to bear, when will I need it for?'' he said. ``I don't allow something like this to take me off balance, I cannot be a soldier fighting and worrying about something else.'' H. Res. 226--Condemning Arson of Three Synagogues in California

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I know of no other Members on my side who wish to speak. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and I reserve the right to close.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 226. I am bringing House Resolution 226 to the House floor with strong bipartisan support and 75 cosponsors. In addition, I want to applaud my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for their hard work in helping me get this bill to the floor with such strong support. This resolution condemns the recent acts of arson at three Sacramento synagogues. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened today that I have to be here on the House floor to speak about this tragic event. However, this resolution is necessary due to the cowardly acts of arsonists still at large. On the evening of June 18, three Sacramento area synagogues, the Congregation B'nai Israel, Congregation Beth Shalom, and the Kenesset Israel Torah Center, were targeted and set on fire by one or more arsonists, causing more than $1 million in damage. While the damage to property was severe, no dollar amount can reflect the true damage done when vicious crimes such as these strike a community. Sacramento and the surrounding communities have banded together to denounce these acts of arson and to raise money to rebuild the damaged synagogues. While these steps by the community are to be applauded, as Members of Congress, we must stand together and condemn these acts to ensure that similar events do not take place in the future in other communities throughout this Nation. These malicious deeds are reminiscent of the church burnings that occurred in 1996 throughout the south. The event that took place in Northern California earlier this month illustrates that such crimes are, unfortunately, still possible. This resolution expresses our resolve to ensure that such acts of ignorance and bigotry will not be tolerated and those who commit them will be brought quickly to justice. It condemns these specific acts of arson in the Sacramento area, while also affirming our strong opposition to all such crimes of intolerance. It states in the strongest terms possible that we are committing Federal law enforcement personnel and resources to identify the persons who committed these heinous acts and bring them swiftly to justice. Mr. Speaker, it is still disturbing that while great men and women in our Nation's history had the courage and determination to strive to overcome the barriers of oppression, intolerance, and discrimination in order to ensure fair and equal treatment for every American, acts of such malice as these occur even now as we approach the 21st Century. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in showing condemnation of the recent arson of three Sacramento synagogues and lend their support to House Resolution 226 on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a life-long educator in my district who is retiring after 39 years of dedicated service to students in my district of California. Dr. Marvin Locke, Tehama County Superintendent of Schools, has been one of the single most influential curriculum and staff development leaders in the state. He will be honored for his achievements on June 19 in Manton, California. Following receipt of his Doctorate in Education at the University of Pacific in 1970, it was apparent that Dr. Locke would be a pioneer in teacher training. His commitment to a detailed analysis of the factors that improve teacher quality led to the publication of five journal articles in 1971. He then applied his theories in the real world as Director of the Professional Development Center, his first position with the Tehama County Department of Education. In this capacity, he established an intensive teacher-training program to benefit instructors in rural counties. Once the direct benefits to Tehama County instructors became apparent, the Glenn and Shasta County Boards of Education soon adopted their own programs based on Dr. Locke's model. Dr. Locke then sought to shape the path of curriculum and instructional development at the state level. As Assistant Superintendent for the Tehama County Department of Education, Dr. Locke represented a nine-county region on the State Curriculum and Instruction Committee, where he served an unprecedented two terms as Chairman of the County/State Steering Committee. Prior to assuming the position of County Schools Superintendent in 1991, Dr. Locke served 14 years as Associate Superintendent, during which time he became a key co-founder of the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition. This Coalition strives to maintain a rational school funding system for those California counties that are timber rich and property tax poor. It should be noted that throughout his tenure at the Tehama County Office of Education, Dr. Locke was active in many statewide education associations, such as the California Education Research Association, and the Association of California School Administrators, where he served as Chapter President and Region 1 board member. Additionally, he was named 1998 County Superintendent of the Year by the California County Superintendents Education Services Association. Finally, Dr. Locke has received the Phi Kappa Phi and Pi Gamma Mu awards in honor of his contributions to Scholastic and Social Science research. I am honored to recognize an individual who has committed his life to excellence in a field that is critical to the success of our nation's children. Please join me in congratulating Dr. Marvin Elliott Locke for a lifetime of hard work and a job well done.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. The amendment I am rising to speak on in favor of is that which allows the transfer of the reactor at McClellan Air Force Base to the University of California.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I have great admiration for the gentleman from Missouri. My concern is that combat is just beginning.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. The amendment allows the transfer of the unwanted reactor at McClellan Air Force Base to the University of California (Davis) and provides the funding for decommissioning it. This is a reactor owned presently by the Air Force for which they have no further use. The expectation is that they will pay the decommissioning cost. This transfer allows our region, which is suffering through base closures, to realize the benefit of 25 additional years of use of this small reactor without any additional cost. I appreciate the committee making this amendment in order. I look forward to its passage. This is a win in our very difficult base closing process, and I applaud the Congress for making us part of this.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I express my appreciation to the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. Chairman, I rise in somewhat of a dilemma here regarding the Skelton amendment. If he were to suggest striking the language having to do in this proposal with section 106 relating to peacekeeping operations rather than the entire section, I would be in support of it. But as I was when we voted 213-213 back at the start of these activities in Yugoslavia, I continue to see no reason to be engaged in combat in Yugoslavia. I am ready, willing, and able to support peacekeeping operations there, but I must draw the line on combat. I am supporting not doing combat in Yugoslavia. I am supporting doing peacekeeping in Yugoslavia. If the gentleman would be so kind as to amend his request to only strike the combat portion so that, and I do not know the technical details, but if we would be allowed to do peacekeeping, I would be in support accordingly.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. I thank the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Georgia for their generosity. As many of the Members know, we have access over the Internet to any number of things. I have taken the time this evening to track down off the Internet the draft text of the proposed peace agreement. I found it at msnbc.com/news/277886.asp. It is the text of the U.N. draft on Kosovo. While this is the draft, and it was put together yesterday, it does contain a number of things that I think merit our attention in line with the gentleman from Georgia's comments about our commitments here and our obligations as we go into the future. I would just like to highlight a couple of those in particular. There are three parts to this agreement. There is the 21 paragraph preamble, if you will, then there is Annex 1 and then Annex 2. I do not recall which of the gentlemen referred to it, but the phrase was the devil is in the details. I would particularly commend to your reading Annex 1 and Annex 2. In Annex 1, the document calls for a political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for a substantial self-government for Kosovo taking full account of the Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Now, what I am concerned about is what does that mean? It says a political process towards the establishment of an interim political framework. Now, I thought we were trying to find a political framework that would allow the solution, not work towards a political framework. The consequence of this is that we still have doubt and uncertainty as to our ultimate goals. There are three other points I would like to make about this draft text. Again, that was in Annex 1. In Annex 2, paragraph 5, there is a statement, ``Agreement should be reached on the following principles to move toward a resolution of the Kosovo crisis,'' item number 5 being an establishment of an interim administration for Kosovo as part of the international civil presence under which the people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to be decided by the Security Council of the United Nations. Take note, if you would, please. We have been there as NATO. Now we are transferring to the United Nations the responsibility for establishing interim administration and an international civil presence. Again in Annex 2, paragraph 6, there is agreement to allow an agreed number of Yugoslav and Serbian personnel to return to Kosovo to perform various civil and security functions after the agreement is made. Now, that is all well and good. But then, going back again in Annex 2, the last one, is a comprehensive approach to economic development and stabilization of the region, including a stability pact for Southeastern Europe. Ladies and gentlemen, we have agreed to autonomy for Kosovo, self- government for Kosovo, an international civil presence in Kosovo to protect the Kosovars and their autonomy, the return after their initial withdrawal of Yugoslavian and Serbian personnel for limited civil and security purposes, deployment in Kosovo of an international and civil security presence, and a blank check for economic development and stabilization. Well, who is going to bear the burden here? It begs the question. Who is going to pay for this? I am serious about this. We have spent $2 billion at least to date. Between now and the end of the fiscal year, we are scheduled to spend an additional 3 to $4 billion. And we have opened the door to a draw because we are the only country that can do it, to a draw on the United States Treasury to reconstruct what we just finished destroying. Now, the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Georgia are correct. At what point do we make a choice as to the best interests of the United States and its residents? Do we in fact spend the money in Kosovo and Yugoslavia for reconstruction? Or do we spend the money on education and health care and infrastructure here in the United States? That is a true and unavoidable choice. I regret to say, and I do want to say, I mean, I have been an opponent of our activities in Yugoslavia. I think the President made a serious mistake. I want to make sure that I am clear about this. I commend him for his behind-the-scene efforts in getting us to this point where we at least have the draft, as yet unsigned, of a treaty, a peace agreement that will allow us to terminate our activities there. I commend the administration for that. Mr. Speaker, it is a great thing for us to get to this point. But there is substantial uncertainty that remains here. As Members of the House exercising our constitutional oversight authority, we need to be cognizant that the United States remains the bank, if you would, on which the rest of the world will ultimately come calling to fund all of these measures that lack specificity, that are not well defined, that would not be used in private industry for any transaction whatsoever. This is a step in the right direction. I hope between now and the time when the United Nations Security Council adopts this and the members of NATO affirm it that definition is added to this agreement sufficient to answer these questions as to what the various phrases in here mean about substantial autonomy, substantial self-government and the like.

Mr. OSE. If the gentleman will yield, the United States has a long list try, as recently exhibited in the early nineties, of going to our allies and asking them to pitch in, as the gentleman suggested. It is curious, we have received from one ally a contribution, that being the ally from Taiwan. They have put up significant money, and I apologize for this, I don't recall whether it is 300 thousand or 300 million, but the money they have contributed has gone towards medical and assistance, other assistance, with our refugee and humanitarian aid. So it is not a question of whether or not there are countries, allies of ours, even non-NATO Members, to whom we can turn for assistance. That exists. There are people who will help us in this challenge that we all face. It is a question of are we asking them? Have we asked them for their contribution?

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, it is ironic that we find ourselves here talking about rocket scientists, because under no circumstances do I pretend to be a rocket scientist. However I think, like so many things we are involved in, whether it be running our families with our spouses or raising our children or running our businesses, the devil of doing anything is in the details that are involved. And I want to run through a few things that are in the Cox report in particular related to what used to be the United States' quantitative and qualitative edge in technology and what damage has occurred as a result of the loss of these secrets. As many people know, the United States has continually improved its ability to deliver intercontinental ballistic missiles, whether it be telemetry or design or payloads or what have you; year after year after year, compared to the situations in other countries where the technology available, for instance to the People's Republic of China or others, was either based on 1950s design or was wholly unavailable, period. And the reason these things are so important and particularly related to the most current news we hear about the loss of secrets from Los Alamos and other laboratories is that the design warheads and the manner in which they are delivered are significantly improved, both in terms of payload and efficiency, by virtue of having one country steal from us that technology that we have created by virtue of investment over tens of years and billions of dollars. For instance, what used to be our technology in the 1950s could deliver arguably a relatively small payload accurately. Over the years we have been able to create technology and implement technology that allows us to shrink the size of our warheads, improve the delivery system on a ballistic missile basis and put multiple warheads in a single delivery system as opposed to one warhead per delivery. The tragedy of the theft of these secrets is that our ostensible trading partners now possess the same ability, as compared to as few as 10 years ago, in the late 1980s, when they were totally incapable, incapable of delivering that kind of a weapon on the United States. And the reason that is important is that, as we go forward, as the House wishes and has adopted with its national ballistic missile defense plan, as we go forward, putting that in place, if we have a missile come to our shores with multiple, independent reentry vehicles, the difficulty of preventing those weapons from detonating are multiplied logarithmically. It is not arithmetic, it is not geometric, it is logarithmic because our ostensible trading partners, instead of having again one warhead per missile have shrunk the size of their warheads and loaded multiple warheads onto the missile, and as they come back into the atmosphere, will release them on target. This is something that affects every single one of us. It has nothing to do with economic trade in my opinion. This is a national security issue, and it is of great concern to me on this issue, as it has been, as you both know and as many of the others know here as to our intervention in Yugoslavia, that we, number one, are ignoring the national security interests in the case of these ballistic missiles and the information that has been stolen relative to technology and the like in one case, and we are unable to identify a national security interest in another case, that being Yugoslavia. So the gentleman from Arizona's comment is well made about how to get access to this. I am sure that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has it on his web site. I would encourage every American to at least read the forward summary in volume 1. It is frightening information. It is emblematic of the difficulty that we face and the dangers we face in the real world today.

Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, and I am particularly pleased to be here with my good friend in the Speaker's chair. I do not speak often on the floor, and I welcome the chance to come down today. I, in particular, was sitting in my office listening this evening to the discussion on the floor and I thought of the Cox report that I have been reading, traveling back and forth to my district, and in volume I, on page XXIV, it talks about the basis from the Reagan years for the reaching out to China; that having been a decision on our part here in the United States to use our relationship with the People's Republic of China as a strategic offset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union and also to buttress our ability to launch space-based vehicles. The determination of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and as noted here in the Cox report, again on page XXIV in volume I, is that that decision, contrary to what people might hear bandied about by many of our colleagues, no longer is applicable; that the consequence or the necessity of having Red China as an offset to the Soviet Union no longer exists because the Soviet Union no longer exists. So the strategic underpinning of our commercial interaction with China has evaporated. The reason I bring that up, is that in that same document, on XVIII, it talks about two companies in particular who have engaged in significant commercial interaction with the PRC, having to do with their missile defense and development programs, those being Hughes and Loral, and I just wanted to read to my colleagues some of the verbiage that was agreed upon by the bipartisan China commission that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) chaired, for the record, having to do with multiple independent reentry vehicles; having to do with accident investigation techniques; having to do with testing, modeling and simulation, hardware design and manufacture of these ballistic missiles. I quote. ``In both 1993 and '95, Hughes failed to apply for or obtain the required Department of State licenses for its activities, because Hughes knew that the Department of State would be unlikely to grant the license and that the licensing process would in any case be lengthy.'' It goes on to say, and keep in mind this is a bipartisan unanimous report, ``Hughes also engaged in deliberate efforts to circumvent the Department of State licensing requirement.'' Now, this is the part that I almost went myself ballistic on the airplane over. ``To this end, Hughes sought the approval of a Department of Commerce official for its 1995 activities and claims to have sought the approval of a Department of Defense monitor for some of its 1993 activities, although Hughes knew that neither official was legally authorized to issue the required license.'' They knew. This goes on. And it is not just Hughes, it was also Loral. Same page, page XIX, volume I of the Cox report, and these are not my words, this is a bipartisan unanimous writing of the report, ``Loral and Hughes deliberately acted without the legally required license and violated U.S. export control laws.'' This has to do with our most sensitive equipment, dealing with intercontinental ballistic missiles, targeted potentially on the United States. Where does this lead? Where does this lead? Where is the administration? Again, this is not put out with any singularity. This is a bipartisan report, a unanimously accepted report of the Cox commission.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give special recognition to a high school in my district that has its eye on the future and its students on the road to success. Center High School in the Center Unified School District will be dedicated on May 22 after undergoing extensive remodeling of its facilities to accommodate, among other things the continuing emergence of high technology in the classroom, and the growing demand for improved mathematics and science education. The dramatic changes at Center High School come at a time when this school district faces tremendous challenges in coping with a significant loss of student enrollment due to the imminent closure of McClellan Air Force Base. Despite such a daunting obstacle, forward- thinking trustees, administrators, faculty members, school staff, parents and others in the community moved ahead with plans to give students at Center High School their best possible chance to succeed in a rapidly changing world. It should come as no surprise that this particular school district took such a leadership role. Even as the Gold Rush swept through California and well before the Pony Express began to link my state to the rest of the nation, one of the area's very first schools opened its doors to students in what is now the Center Unified School District. For almost a century and a half, this community has focused on future generations. At its dedication ceremony, Center High will show off its state-of- the-art science complex and adjoining computer lab, a new mathematics wing with adjoining computer lab, a new library with multiple computer research stations, a new 500 seat performing arts theatre and music building, a special education wing, and a technology-based curriculum integrated in the school's Media Communications and Business Academies. It also should be noted that student achievements at Center High School are truly remarkable. Most recently, both the student newspaper and yearbook received the Gold Crown Awards from the Columbia Scholastic Press Association--their equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize. It is the only school in the nation to win top honors for both publications. In addition, Center High freshman William John was recently selected to represent California in People to People International at a United Nations conference in Switzerland this summer. It is refreshing and hopeful for all of us to witness the rebirth of Center High School and to honor the tremendous success of its students. I urge you to join me in congratulating all those involved for a job well done.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding. The manner in which he has described the inner workings of the Federal Government is very accurate in that what we do in one arena does affect what we do in another, particularly with respect to our financial condition, which is why I came down to the floor tonight was to bring the attention of this chamber to the continuing disastrous foreign policy being pursued by the Clinton administration. The activities being promulgated by the Clinton administration in Yugoslavia remain unauthorized by the Congress, unapproved by the Congress, and completely bewildering to the vast majority of the residents of the Third District of California. What is the national security interest that the administration is seeking to protect by destroying the infrastructure of Yugoslavia? What is the standard by which the administration will judge their air campaign a success? Going to the reference of my colleague, how much will this ill- founded campaign cost our country in blood, bombs, and bullion that has to be taken from Social Security if nowhere else? It is inarguable that the administration's foreign policy in Yugoslavia is reducing our military readiness and preparedness. What will be the consequence to our national interest as a result of this stripping of our ability to conduct our military efforts elsewhere in the world, and for what purpose? My friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) earlier shared with us the list of obviously non-military targets being destroyed or damaged in this air campaign. Those are my colleagues' and my tax dollars being used on, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) said, day-care centers, schools, churches and the like. That is Social Security money being used to destroy day-care centers, schools, churches and the like. Do my colleagues know what I find the most ironic? I go home on Friday of last week and I find it extremely ironic that all of America's foreign policy eggs now rest in a Russian basket. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this must stop, not next month, not next week, not tomorrow, now.