John Sweeney

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I was standing here listening to the exchange between you and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and I look around the room and see a number of our colleagues throughout the Nation, and it strikes me that this issue of equity in the dairy industry and the debate over the legislation attendant to Option 1-A really does not know any geographic bounds. We have a number of people who are supportive of our endeavor. As the gentleman pointed out earlier, nearly 300 Members of the House and Senate wrote to Secretary Glickman concerned that he was headed down the wrong path when reforming the Federal milk marketing audit program. Unfortunately, despite that, the Secretary chose to ignore the consensus by rejecting Option 1-A, instead selecting Option 1-B, as well as is the case from our friend from Maine, also affects New York in an adverse way. This is not a question of trying to enrich the New York dairy industry, but a question of trying to hold the line and stop the bleeding, which has been profuse. Congress has been very consistent in its position with respect to dairy policy, as the gentleman pointed out. Farm groups, dairy producers, have coalesced behind Option 1-A and built a pretty convincing coalition. I want to talk about a couple things as we start out this evening, if I could, to give you a little perspective on New York State generally and talk a little bit about the perishable nature of milk. You touched on some of those issues, but in New York the Option 1-B as proposed by Secretary Glickman will probably cost us something in the range of $200 million to $300 million. We cannot absorb that kind of cost. Our dairy industry ranks third in the Nation. Milk production is vital, and by far is one of the greatest contributors to the State's agricultural economy, as well as prominent contributor to the rural character of upstate New York which I happen to represent a portion thereof. Dairy farms generate over $1.5 billion in milk receipts annually, and the dairy industry supplies my State something in the range of 80,000 jobs, especially in areas of the State where we have a great deal of economic strife existing. Despite the prominent role of this industry, our dairy farmers have been in a precarious position for some time and the volatile markets have jacked up retail prices while eroding the farm share for the consumer. Record highs have been followed by record lows, and dairy farmers no longer plan a steady income. It is tough for a farmer to plan a steady income, as you pointed out, and it is important to understand that the product dairy farmers provide sets them apart substantially from other agriculture producers. As providers of a very, very perishable product, dairy farmers lose the ability to ride out or boycott unattractive markets. Dairy producers cannot simply turn off the faucet of the cow when the price goes south and cannot withhold raw milk from the market in order to bargain for a higher price. They are at the beck and whim of that marketplace. This places them at the mercy of the volatile dairy market, which just this last spring we saw a 40 percent drop in the price farmers receive for fluid milk and an unprecedented plunge. Imagine what a terrifying experience it would be if you saw your income drop by 40 percent and then recognize that while you still have to pay your bills and expenses, the prices were going to drop at that rate. No matter how much you receive for your milk, fields still have to be plowed, Mr. Speaker, cows still have to be fed, mortgages still have to be paid. It is no wonder that the independent dairy farmers are losing their farms at an alarming rate in New York State and elsewhere, as well as in many other regions of the nation. Aside from the perishable nature of the raw milk, there are other more ominous forces that work against our dairy farmers. Rapid consolidation in the dairy industry is putting market power in the hands of very few. My colleagues from urban areas in New York State have argued for some time that they are concerned that Option 1-A and the Dairy Compact and inclusion thereof will create a false pricing structure that will somehow cost their constituents. That is not true, and they need to be very concerned that as the rural upstate family dairy farmer is in greater peril, so are their consumer constituents in greater peril, because they will be left with fewer options and have to go greater distances to purchase the dairy products, the milk products, that they choose to. I would only direct you to the problems and those who would question Option 1-A and inclusion in the Dairy Compact, that the problems that we now have with market concentration and poultry, beef, and pork industries, and contend that dairy is headed down the same road if we do nothing to prevent it. So I want to applaud the gentleman for your efforts in this regard. I want to applaud all of my other colleagues for their efforts as well. I think this is probably one of the most significant economic issues for my region certainly and my district and for much of rural America.

Mr. SWEENEY. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record this editorial from the Wisconsin-based dairy magazine ``Hoard's Dairyman'' which is entitled ``On Federal Order Reform . . . First, Do No Harm.'' I think it puts it in perfect perspective. What it essentially says is that Federal orders are put in place for dairy farmers, to be approved by dairy farmers. While USDA's proposal addresses some pricing aberrations, we cannot be expected to embrace a plan that reduces income for this high-capital, low-margin, physically demanding business of producing milk. I suggest we take the advice of this upper Midwest authority with the national interests of the dairy industry in mind. First do no harm and reform the dairy program in a way that does not hurt dairy farmers. [From the Hoard's Dairyman, May 10, 1999] On Federal Order Reform . . . First, Do No Harm Think back to when the federal order reform package being debated now was being drafted. The 1996 Farm Bill that mandated reform was to be the start of getting government out of farming or, at least, away from regulating (or supporting) the price of farm products. ``Market orientation'' and ``global competitiveness'' were the ag policy watch words. Now, USDA's final rule proposes Class I differentials that would be ``flatter.'' Across all orders, differentials would average 29 cents a hundredweight less than existing levels. The so-called make allowances would be raised for plants making butter and cheese under federal order jurisdiction. The intent is to make federal order plants more competitive with those in California which operate under higher make allowances. But there is only so much value in a hundredweight of milk. Boosting margins for plants leaves less money to pay producers. The National Milk Producers Federation estimates that dairy farmer income in federal orders would have averaged $196 million a year less during the past five years had USDA's final rule been in effect. That figure may be inflated somewhat as it does not include overorder and other premiums that would be paid. Still, we're talking about less money in dairy farmers' bank accounts. Having said this, let's remember that much has changed during the past two years since the Farm Bill was passed. Feed grain and wheat prices have been in the pits. The pork picture needs no explanation. Beef prices are stagnant, at best. And our milk prices soared to record highs, followed by the lowest level in eight years. In short, today's ag policy environment is much different than it was just two years ago. Accordingly, the medical motto ``First, do no harm'' comes to mind. Federal milk orders are put in place for dairy farmers, to be approved by dairy farmers. While the order proposal addresses some pricing aberrations, we can't be expected to embrace a plan that reduces income for this high- capital, low-margin, physically-demanding business of producing milk. Rather than market orientation, we should be concerned about the nearly 8,000 families that sold their cows during 1998, many because they couldn't make ends meet. Rather than global competitiveness, we should be concerned that the highest milk prices ever (1998's average mailbox price was $15.05) were well under the total economic cost of production in five of six regions of the country, according to USDA analysis. Congress is to react to the reform plan by early summer. There will be heated debates on divisive issues, such as differentials and make allowances, both within and beyond the Beltway. Dairy farmer leaders from across the country need to put aside regional differences and bring to Washington a unified voice that asks for best possible price for all diary farmers.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hutchinson-Weiner- Sweeney substitute. This substitute will provide meaningful reform to asset forfeiture without removing the teeth from the most valuable tool in what seems to be a losing war against drugs. I have been here most of the afternoon listening to the debate, and I recognize that well-meaning people on both sides of this issue, including our chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), have attempted to define and seek what is the balance between protecting the private property rights of innocent individuals, and also, at the same time, give law enforcement the tools they need to combat criminal enterprises. What we seek in offering this substitute is to define and find those fine points, because we recognize that we are losing ground on the war on drugs, and now, I believe, unfortunately, H.R. 1658 will take us a step backwards when we really should be moving forward, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 1658, while it protects the rights of law-abiding property owners, and that is its intention, and that is in part what it does do, it also protects law-breaking property owners as well. Is this what we want in the crosshairs in the middle of the battle on drugs? I do not think so. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1658 rewards criminals by allowing them to challenge every forfeiture action, regardless of merit, and provides a free lawyer to do so, inundating the already overburdened Federal court system with frivolous claims. I have heard the Chairman argue that these folks are not criminals because they have not been proven guilty, but as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) pointed out, in 85 percent of the cases, claims are not made. The Supreme Court has ruled on 11 different forfeiture cases upholding virtually in every one that the constitutional rights of individuals that have broad claims have not been violated. We seek balance here. Can we not strike a balance between free enterprise and criminal enterprise? I think we can, and I think this substitute achieves that. The Hutchinson-Weiner-Sweeney substitute is a rational alternative providing rational reform and uniform standards without crippling and tying the hands of law enforcement in the war against drugs. Now, moving from the rational to the excessive, the most outrageous aspect, in my view, of H.R. 1658 is a provision that allows heirs to inherit drug fortunes. We have a hard enough time as it is in this country allowing legitimate estates to pass to legitimate heirs without making it easier for criminals to literally take the money and run, and that is what we attempt to close here in this substitute. The loophole in H.R. 1658 would allow drug kingpins and other criminals who have amassed illegal fortunes to pass their wealth to their heirs, not just wives and children, but also friends, mistresses and business associates. Mr. Chairman, this substitute protects legitimate, innocent owners such as bona fide purchasers, or parents who have no involvement in or knowledge of criminal activity, without undercutting the ability of law enforcement to forfeit property from drug dealers, terrorists, alien smugglers and other criminals. At a time when the street price of heroin has dropped dramatically and the supply has increased, we must not weaken law enforcement's ability to fight drugs. I rise, therefore, in strong support of this substitute because it brings about balanced reforms to civil asset forfeiture without compromising law enforcement's ability to seize the assets of drug dealers and racketeers. When the heroin market rivals the stock market, why would we want to scale back the efforts of our police? Law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to keep our neighborhoods safe. They patrol the dark ally, raid the drug dens and meth labs, and they patrol the borders in the dark of night. Many men and women do these things every day, risking their lives to make our neighborhoods safer. I am not prepared to undercut the good work of law enforcement, Mr. Chairman. That is why I support this substitute, and strongly urge my colleagues to do the same. If Members seek safer streets, support this substitute. If they believe that we ought to be tougher on criminals than on innocent people, support the Hutchinson-Weiner-Sweeney substitute. If Members support the good work of law enforcement, they should support this substitute. If they seek to do the right thing for America, support this substitute. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to do that. Amendment No. 15 In The Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Paul as a Substitute for Amendment No. 25 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Hutchinson

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio). Quickly, I want to applaud this effort, and I am proud to join it. As the chairman knows, 81 members from both the New York and California delegation sent a letter to the chairman last week, and I wanted to add a point to this. I represent a rural area, and on behalf of the rural areas in New York and California, I wanted to just stress that rural transit systems have few sources of revenue to make up for huge cuts to their Federal formula funding allocation. So this will hit disproportionately those areas pretty significantly. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) has pointed out, we in New York have committed to a high standard on infrastructure repair and transportation repair. A higher share of our own resources are committed to transit than any other State; nearly 70 percent of our $12 million Statewide transit capital program financed from State and local resources. So this is a critical issue for us in my district and throughout New York State. And, again, I want to applaud the efforts of my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), and ask the Chairman for his support and thank the gentleman for the opportunity to express this concern.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for yielding me this time. I want to start by commending the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his diligent hard work on this amendment and to help carry the good work brought forward by my predecessor, Gerald Solomon. Madam Speaker, I rise today as one of the lead cosponsors and supporters of this constitutional amendment. There are many reasons to do so. As we know, there is a deeply reserved desire by many Americans to protect the flag because they recognize that the American flag holds a sacred place in their hearts. Prior speakers spoke of the flag serving as a mere symbol. He said that this country was founded by dissenters. I would like to say that it was not founded just by dissenters, it was founded by dissenters who risked their lives, their blood, who took action because it requires action to provide freedom. They did so for their flag. I would also like the prior speaker and those who would dissent here to consider that the Medal of Honor is specifically awarded to those who have fought for their flag and on its behalf. I take very personally the issue. I recall a year ago my own father, a veteran of World War II, passed away. Prior to his passing, one of his great concerns was that the flag that is bestowed upon veterans by our country for their service be provided at his wake, be shown at his wake in the most meaningful way. If it means nothing, then why does one have, as their last thoughts, thoughts of the flag? If it means nothing, then tell that to those who go to war and march behind it. If it means nothing, then those who have gone and given their lives and made the ultimate sacrifice have done so because of the flag. Further, I believe that, as an elected public official, it is our duty to represent the views of an overwhelming majority of Americans who want us to restore to them the power to prohibit the physical desecration of our flag. Madam Speaker, as citizens of the United States, we are concerned with protecting individual rights. We fight to protect our freedom of religion. We fight to protect our freedom of assembly. Essentially, we protect our right to live as free citizens. So, Madam Speaker, why would anybody find fault with protecting the very symbol of that freedom. Here, in Congress, we are here to pass laws to protect and rename old buildings, and laws to protect citizens from creditors, and laws to protect citizens from predators. We do these things for the right reasons and good reasons. Can we not do the same for the very symbol of what is right and good and just in our Nation? Every Member of Congress takes the time to have his or her picture taken with the flag of the United States as a backdrop. Every Member of Congress takes the time to march in parades with our flag. Every Member of Congress takes the time to present the American flag to groups of constituents back in their district. Why? Is it because this is just some sort of studio prop? No. It is because the flag is a symbol that everyone understands and respects. Madam Speaker, we cannot use the flag of the United States as a prop and then fail to protect it and what it stands for. We cannot, we should not, we must not cave in to intellectual snobbery. Being patriotic and sharing a deep love for the American flag is not politically incorrect. So let us stop acting like we are all too smart to be patriotic. Madam Speaker, some of my colleagues will argue today that this amendment would infringe on the individual right to free speech. The right to free speech is the bedrock of America's founding. I will be the first to passionately defend the First Amendment. But burning an American flag is not free speech. It is inexcusable conduct that must be condemned. We should not protect such reprehensible behavior any more than we should protect arsonists and vandals. Madam Speaker, I am not alone in this argument. There are many people far more distinguished than I who believe that flag burning does not deserve to be a constitutionally protected form of speech. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) has pointed out, nearly 10 years ago to this very day the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning was an act of free expression by the slimmest margins, one vote. In that case, the four dissenters based their opposition on the fact that flag desecration is expressive conduct as distinguished from actual speech. In this regard they stated that the government's interest in preserving the value of the flag is unrelated to the suppression of ideas that flag burners are trying to suppress. Madam Speaker, let me finish by quoting Harvard law professor Richard D. Parker. Mr. Parker is a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat who has spoken so eloquently in support of this amendment in the past. He said, ``The American flag doesn't stand for one government or one party or one party platform. Instead, it stands for an aspiration to national unity despite, and transcending, our differences and diversity. A robust system of free speech depends, after all, on maintaining a sense of community. It depends on some agreement that, despite our differences, we are `one'; that the problem of any American is `our' problem. It is thus for minority and unpopular viewpoints that the aspiration to and respect for the unique symbol of national unity is thus most important.'' Madam Speaker, I move to protect that symbol of unity, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. 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.R. 1000, the bill just considered.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about people. Upstate New York has been identified as an area that needs improvement and has been labeled a ``pocket of pain'' in the aviation system. The airports that serve my district are in dire need of many improvements, methods of enhancing accessibility, machinery, and, most importantly, technology. Single airlines dominate service to the upstate region, and existing airline access rules have stifled competition and caused passengers to pay unreasonably high air fares. For example, a round trip ticket from Albany to Washington, D.C. is almost $700. We are losing jobs and a chance to compete globally. Air 21 provides a critical step toward rebuilding the economies of many suburban and rural areas nationwide. I urge my colleagues to pass Air 21 and give us a chance to grow and compete.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the enrolling clerk be authorized to make technical and conforming changes in the engrossment of H.R. 1000, the bill just considered.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 91 authorizes the use of the Capitol grounds for a summer recruitment clinic to be conducted by the United States Luge Association on August 14 of this year. The clinic, to be held in the north side of the Capitol, will allow youngsters from Washington, D.C., ages 10 to 14, to ride an actual luge sled equipped with wheels down Constitution Avenue. The United States Luge Association, proudly based at the winter Olympic training facilities in my district in Lake Placid, New York, has been conducting clinics throughout the country for the last 12 years. Last year, the Bell Atlantic Junior Luge Series brought the luge experience to 618 youngsters during the summer and fall covering both sides of the country with clinics in eight cities. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be offering this resolution today so that the winter Olympic sport of luge may be brought out to our Nation's Capitol. Mr. Speaker, one of the most treasured memories I hold of Lake Placid was the 1980 Winter Olympics when the Nation celebrated the U.S. Hockey Team's famous ``Miracle on Ice'' gold medal victory. That was a defining moment for our Nation, a time that made Americans proud. U.S. luge is carrying on that Olympic tradition and is spreading that spirit around the country through this innovative recruitment program. Mr. Speaker, we also should remember that 1998 marked the breakout year from U.S. luge from a 34-year absence at the Olympic medal stand when two American duos captured the silver and bronze medals at the Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan. Cris Thorpe of Marquette, Michigan; Gordy Sheer of Croton, New York; Mark Grimmette of Muskegon, Michigan; and Brian Martin of Palo Alto, California, propelled the United States into the limelight as a leader in the international sport of luge with their medal victories. Lake Placid, New York, nestled in the heartland of the Adirondack Mountains has been chosen to host this year's 2000 Goodwill Games, Mr. Speaker. The Goodwill Games will unveil a new state-of-the-art luge run now under construction and, in doing so, will further establish the United States as the international leader in the sport of luge. The games will also bring renewed attention to New York's dramatic comeback, particularly the State's economic turnaround in Upstate. Working with the Olympic Regional Development Authority in Lake Placid to make the new bobsled and luge runs a reality, those agendas and those organizations have made that a top priority, as have I. International sporting events provide a tremendous boost to the local economy and to New York's North Country, attracting hundreds of thousands of visitors, tourists, and athletes. The summer luge program, Mr. Speaker, incorporating sleds on wheels, is the U.S. National Luge Team's primary recruitment tool. Currently, 90 percent of the USA Luge Junior National Team has been identified via this off-season tour and three have competed in the Winter Olympics. In fact, Nagano bronze medalist Brian Martin was discovered at a 1988 clinic in Palo Alto, California. Who knows, this very clinic could yield a future Olympian right here from Washington. Mr. Speaker, the Olympic movement is entirely dependent on successful grassroots programs like the Junior Luge series. I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 91 so that the Olympic spirit of the U.S. luge movement may be brought to our Nation's Capitol this summer.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, on July 6, 1999, the W.B. Neilson Hose Company No. 4 celebrates its 100th anniversary of fine service to Mechanicville, NY. It is my honor to represent the 22nd Congressional District that is served by such a dedicated department. I would like to offer my sincerest and most enthusiastic congratulations to every member of the W.B. Neilson Hose Company No. 4 who has worked to maintain such a high level of excellence in fire fighting. With the flicker of an idea, thirty-five enthusiastic volunteers took action, bringing this company to life in 1899. Over the years the W.B. Neilson Hose Company No. 4 has encountered many obstacles. During the early years, members had to draw the heavy horse cart through narrow, hilly streets and haul the heavy load over a steep bridge, all while facing treacherous weather conditions. These bumps in the road could have spelled disaster for an ordinary company, but they only made the W.B. Neilson Hose Company No. 4 stronger. The devoted and dedicated members of this company deserve to be commended for their outstanding citizenship. These great men and women selflessly risk their lives in an effort to help and protect their friends and neighbors. Their heroic deeds reach far above and beyond the duty of an everyday citizen, and for this I am eternally grateful. Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking W.B. Neilson Hose Company No. 4 for a century of outstanding volunteer service to Mechanicville, New York. I am sure that this first hundred years is only the beginning for this wonderful company.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1401, the bill to authorize our all-important national defense programs and in support of the en bloc amendment which includes language that addresses a crisis in our veterans community. Throughout their lives, the men and women of our armed services make great sacrifices in the service of our country. Yet, many families requesting honor guards at the burials of veterans are being told ``NO''--that we do not have the resources to honor those who have served so nobly. As Americans, the very least we can do is make sure that our veterans are given a proper burial when they die. My amendment strengthens the current language in the bill by requiring, not just permitting, the Secretary of Defense to provide necessary materials, equipment, and training to support non- governmental organizations--namely our VFW, Disabled American Veterans, American Legion, and other veterans groups--in providing honor guard services. Mr. Speaker, the newest of our National Cemeteries, Saratoga National Cemetery, will be opening in the heart of my district this July and will conduct funerals every thirty minutes for the next several years. Our active duty and reserve servicemen and women cannot keep up. Mr. Speaker--this is unacceptable! Everyone who served in the armed forces gave something. Some who served gave everything. And we have a responsibility to give back! Our veterans are eager to fill this void on a volunteer basis, but they do not possess the resources to do so. The committee bill will give private individuals the tools necessary to provide honor guard services, thereby reducing the demand on active duty servicemen or reservists. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and reaffirm our commitment to our veterans.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, on June 7, 1999, after chairing a meeting concerning the Kosovo crisis, President Lee Teng-hui announced that the Republic of China will donate $300 million to help Kosovar refugees rebuild their homes. I would like to applaud the ROC for playing an active role in the ``world arena'' and working together to maintain world peace. Humanitarian aid to Kosovar refugees is a common goal for all countries. In recognition of their honorable deed I am submitting President Lee Tenug-hui's statement regarding assistance to Kosovar refugees. Presidential Statement Regarding Assistance to Kosovar Refugees The huge numbers of Kosovar casualties and refugees from the Kosovo area resulting from the NATO-Yugoslavia conflict in the Balkans have captured close world-wide attention. From the very outset, the government of the ROC has been deeply concerned and we are carefully monitoring the situation's development. We in the Republic of China were pleased to learn last week that Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic has accepted the peace plan for the Kosovo crisis proposed by the Group of Eight countries, for which specific peace agreements are being worked out. The Republic of China wholeheartedly looks forward to the dawning of peace on the Balkans. For more than two months, we have been concerned about the plight of the hundreds of thousands of Kosovar refugees who were forced to flee to other countries, particularly from the vantage point of our emphasis on protecting human rights. We thereby organized a Republic of China aid mission to Kosovo. Carrying essential relief items, the mission made a special trip to the refugee camps in Macedonia to lend a helping hand. Today, as we anticipate a critical moment of forth-coming peace, I hereby make the following statement to the international community on behalf of all the nationals of the Republic of China: As a member of the world community committed to protecting and promoting human rights, the Republic of China would like to develop further the spirit of humanitarian concern for the Kosovar refugees living in exile as well as for the war-torn areas in dire need of reconstruction. We will provide $300 million. The aid will consist of the following: 1. Emergency support for food shelters, medical care, and education, etc. for the Kosovar refugees, living in exile in neighboring countries. 2. Short-term accommodations for some of the refugees in Taiwan, with opportunities of job training in order for them to be better equipped for the restoration of their homeland upon their return. 3. Furthermore, support the rehabilitation of Kosovo area in coordination with international long-term recovery programs when the peace plan is implemented. We earnestly hope that the above-mentioned aid will contribute to the promotion of the peace plan for Kosovo. I wish all the refugees an early return to their safe and peaceful Kosovo homes.

Mr. SWEENEY

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

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do not expect to use all my allotted time, and I want to thank both the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for the opportunity to present this amendment. As my colleagues know, the past several years have revealed two major breaches in the national security interests of this great Nation, and we have heard a lot of debate and discussion on the floor today about one of those. And the Chinese nuclear espionage and the transfer of militarily-sensitive technology to satellite trade have now proven beyond a doubt to have significantly enhanced the military capability of communist China. Since the end of the Cold War, I believe, Mr. Chairman, we have taken our military strength and in turn our national security a bit for granted. Sadly, the recent events have revealed that American strength is not automatic and we must take positive steps to preserve our role as the only remaining superpower. Today I offer my amendment to reestablish that it is the policy of the United States to ensure that our technological advances and military knowhow are not turned against us in the form of advanced military threat. My amendment and the real value of my amendment, I believe, is that it would provide an additional and very necessary layer of security and scrutiny to ensure that Chinese espionage experienced in the Department of Energy labs is not repeated in the Departments of Defense and Energy and that they regularly monitor their policies with respect to the technological transfers with China. The amendment requires that the Inspector General of Defense and Energy assess in consultation with our intelligence community their departments' policies and procedures with respect to the exchange of technology and scientific information that could be used to enhance the military capabilities in China. This audit must be conducted on an annual basis and is continuing with a report to Congress. Mr. Chairman, I offered a similar amendment to the NASA authorization just a few weeks ago that passed the House, calling for an annual audit of policies regarding the transfer of technology to China from our space program. I believe this is a commonsense review and it should exist in all relevant departments throughout the Federal Government. Surely I recognize that the Department of Energy has taken steps to correct some of the problems that led to the compromise of our most critical military secrets. I also recognize that there have been a number of amendments presented, and there will be more that will be presented today, that also provide for some answers and some solutions, and Congress has made this a priority as we address these security issues. A few years ago we were pretty certain that the top secret scientific information at our nuclear labs was secure. We now know that was not the case. I think it is entirely appropriate and I would suggest essential that the agencies of the U.S. Government engaging in national security related matters be required to regularly conduct comprehensive evaluations of their policies for protecting militarily sensitive technology. Again, the amendment simply provides an extra layer of protection at the Departments of Defense and Energy to prevent the repeat of the breach of our nuclear labs. America can no longer take our national security for granted and we in Congress can no longer take our national security for granted. I believe this is a common sense oversight amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support today of the DeLay amendment. The time has come to base our relationship with China on realism rather than wishful thinking. The DeLay amendment sends a necessary message to the People's Republic of China that the communist government is an untrustworthy military partner. China's overall military modernization is striking. The PLA's abandonment of a traditional land-based people's army in favor of forming comprehensive strategic and nuclear strike capability by land, sea, and air has profound consequences on our relationship with China, and we ought to let them know that. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the PRC has been pursuing a rapid escalation of its military modernization, of both its strategic and conventional forces, and it is utilizing American technology to do so. As a result, I believe a military confrontation with the PRC is not out of the question. Let us remember it was just 3 years ago that we were forced to send two aircraft carriers into the Taiwan Strait to respond to PRC menacing the region. Military-to-military exchanges are in some cases cornerstones of important peaceful relationships with our allies. The People's Republic of China is not an ally. To be successful, these exchanges must employ real transparencies so that each partner gains insights into the capabilities of the others. There is no mutual transparency here, Mr. Chairman, in our exchanges with the PLA. Instead, the information obtained by the Chinese is being used by its military to isolate our vulnerabilities and position the PLA for a future conflict, and our military experts observe nothing of value in return. This is not the goal of military exchanges. This amendment ensures that our leading military technology and know-how are not turned against us in the form of an advanced military threat. Mr. Chairman, Henry Kissinger recently stated ``that the critics of our `strategic relationship' with China have an obligation to develop a vision commensurate with the vastness of the historical sweep of the challenge.'' I believe he was addressing people like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and myself. I would answer Mr. Kissinger by pointing to the document which is the foundation of our American vision, our Constitution. It is, after all, a vision which requires minimum rights and protections for all individuals. As we know, if Mr. Kissinger were a Chinese citizen and espoused the principles of the Constitution, he would be quickly in prison. Our vision, Mr. Kissinger, is the vision of Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson, and preserving it is important. Mr. Chairman, with respect to China, our country has looked the other way for too long. The DeLay amendment tells China that we expect a relationship based on truth and realism. I urge all my colleagues to support the DeLay amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLay amendment to restrict military exchanges with China's People's Liberation Army. The time has come to base our relationship with China on realism rather than wishful thinking. Since 1994 the P.R.C. has been constructing military facilities in the Spratly Islands. The size and nature of these facilities suggest that the P.R.C. is attempting to establish a permanent strategic presence in the area, from which it could patrol the South China Sea, the waterway through which one sixth of the world's trade is shipped. Two years ago, in March 1997 a Chinese controlled company was able to obtain, from Panama, the rights to the port facilities that flank the canal zone. Then there is the matter of the democratic nation of Taiwan. The P.R.C.'s 1995 military exercises and 1996 missile firings in the Taiwan Strait have been followed by an offensive military buildup on the Chinese mainland itself that includes tripling the number of missiles (to more than 100) already deployed against Taiwan. These developments are all the more alarming when seen against the backdrop of: (1) China's overall military modernization, its abandonment of a traditional, land-based ``people's army'' in favor of a comprehensive strategic and nuclear strike capability by land, sea, and air; (2) China's clandestine efforts to acquire the most secret and sensitive of United States military technologies, including the know- how to replicate the W 88 warhead, the most dangerous security breach in 50 years; and (3) allegations that China has assisted the North Korean missile program, on top of its known and suspected sales of missile and nuclear technologies to terrorist states. With respect to China, our country has looked the other way for too long. Human rights violations in China and Tibet are another point of contention since the Tiananmen Square crackdown. Among these violations are the recent excessive jail and labor camp sentences for pro- democracy activists. A future military confrontation with the P.R.C. is not out of the question. Just three years ago President Clinton was forced to send two American aircraft carriers into the Taiwan Strait. United States policy toward the P.R.C. has been based on wishful thinking for far too long. Policy makers in the Administration of both parties have time and time again been willing to give Chinese leaders the benefit of the doubt only to be consistently let down. The DeLay amendment tells China that we expect a relationship based on truth and realism. Mr. Chairman, Henry Kissinger recently stated and I quote, ``that the critics of our ``strategic relationship'' with China have an obligation to develop a vision commensurate with the vastness and historical sweep of the challenge''. I believe he was addressing people such as Congressman DeLay and myself. I would answer Mr. Kissinger's challenge by pointing to the document which is the foundation of America's vision. Our constitution. A vision which requires minimal rights and protections for all individuals. As we all know, if Mr. Kissinger were a Chinese citizen and espoused the principals of our constitution he would quickly be imprisoned. Our vision, Mr. Kissinger is the vision of Franklin, Adams and Jefferson. I ask support for the DeLay amendment.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have until 6 p.m. on Friday, May 28, 1999, to file a report on the bill (H.R. 1000) to amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes.

Mr. SWEENEY

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

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for affording me the opportunity at rather a late moment to introduce my amendment. My good friend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) just said that all roads in this bill and this debate and this discussion seem to lead to the New World Mine. The reason I am happy I am able to introduce my amendment is because I think it will serve a number of purposes. But one point that can definitively be made is that that is not true, that all roads are not leading in this matter to the New World Mine, that it has impact on the individuals, of people throughout this Nation and in particular in my district. We have heard eloquent debate on both sides of the issue, speakers who have spoken of the need for greater local input and greater input from individuals, and those who have said or who have perceived that these issues involve just the use of public lands. That is not true at all. My amendment expands the existing provisions of H.R. 883 by requiring the Secretary of Interior as part of the management plan to also ensure that the biosphere designation does not affect the revenue of State and local governments, including and probably most importantly the revenue for public education programs. Mr. Chairman, as we have heard, the manner in which international land use agreements have been carried out can tend at times to infringe on the authority of our local municipalities and individuals. My amendment would help protect State and local governments from experiencing a decrease in real property values. As those in many struggling local townships and counties in upstate New York which I represent know all too well, depressed property values serve to depress property tax revenues, the major source for education funding in this country. Today, there are 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves and 20 World Heritage Sites and there is not an argument on this side of the aisle that there is not some legitimacy and need for these agreements. But many of these international agreements were established without local input and certainly without congressional input or approval. This is not government of the people, for the people, by the people, it is detached internationalism in the eyes of many. Most U.N. designations, including the ones in my district, encompass privately held lands, not just public lands. Most of all, there have been instances where no communication with local officials and community residents took place about the effects of designating these lands. These are the people that it affects the most. These are the people in most instances who have rightful ownership of the property that is being affected, who define their freedom in fact by virtue of that ability to own these lands. The current process of selecting U.N. Biosphere Reserves with no recourse for those local residents and their elected officials affected must end. In the 22nd Congressional District of New York, which I represent, there is now one of the largest U.S. Biosphere Reserves housed in the Adirondack Mountains. The private landowners and townships in the Adirondacks had no idea that the Adirondack Park Agency, a quasi-State agency, quietly approved the U.N. biosphere designation and residents were helpless to impact on that, to stop it, to comment on it. In fact, that designated area encompasses 7 million acres of privately held land. It encompasses territories outside the purview and jurisdiction of the Adirondack Park Agency. Yet it has become part of that designated area. Let me tell my colleagues from experience, the U.N. biosphere is an unwanted cloud now that hangs over a good part of the Adirondack region. My congressional district is one with the greatest interest in seeing that this practice is reined in, that the input and the voice of the local individual be heard. It is unfair that my constituents are not included in any discussions that directly affect them and that I as their representative in Congress have practically no avenue to express their concerns. The Secretary of Interior must be required to make the case of U.N. designation to State and local governments as well as this Congress and our Federal bureaucracies should be held accountable to this Congress for any of the effects that international agreements will cause. It is imperative that we protect the rights of our private property owners and the legitimate interests of local governments and their citizens. This bill accomplishes those objectives and my amendment I believe strengthens it by elevating the interests of State and local governments and the effects of U.N. designations on their ability to collect revenue. It is important to the private property owners, it is important to the citizens of those regions, it is important to public education in those areas. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and support this important bill. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take this opportunity to speak today in support of this important legislation, H.R. 883--the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. My district in upstate New York has one of the largest U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States, thus I have a direct interest in H.R. 883 and strongly support its passage. H.R. 883 clearly addresses the concerns many of us have had with the U.N. Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Sites programs. As we know, the U.N. Biosphere Reserve program has been operating with essentially no public or congressional oversight for the past 25 years. And without such oversight often, no one is accountable. These designations can have a marked impact on the properties in and around the biosphere region, yet, in most cases, neither local government nor property owners are ever consulted regarding the designation or site consideration. As an example, in my congressional district, the Champlain-Adirondack Biosphere Reserve was created in 1989 at the request of a quasi- governmental agency--the Adirondack Park Agency. This was done without hearings or formal input from local citizens of the Adirondacks; thus the residents were left feeling helpless and in the reality had no impact upon it. The result was a very bitter feeling and rightfully so over an unwanted imposition on private landowners. Given negative effect on property values, and compounded by the cavalier attitudes of those handing down designations and the blatant disregard for local authority, I would submit that with congressional oversight and public input, many of these U.N. sites would not have been approved in their current form. The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act unequivocally states that no land in this country can be included in international land use programs without the clear and direct approval of Congress. H.R. 883 is a first step in the right direction in returning power to the local citizens as well as the elected Representatives in Congress. Most importantly, this bill reasserts the constitutional rights of property owners to make property decisions, within local zoning authority, without interference from the United Nations whose mandate does not necessarily include concern for our town halls, school houses, or individual property owners in any given area. What recourse do affected landowners have against the United Nations bureaucracy? Absolutely none. This bill changes that. I urge your support.

Mr. SWEENEY. If the gentleman will yield, seven million acres.

Mr. SWEENEY. In the Adirondack region of New York State that are privately owned.

Mr. SWEENEY. There have been a number of instances where private property owners in the use of their property, in the valuation of their property and their ability to develop and cultivate that property have been infringed upon based upon the designation. I think the gentleman misses the point, that the most predominant frustration that those constituents of mine have----

Mr. SWEENEY. The gentleman is correct.