David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, we face a real energy crisis in this country which is only going to grow; and to meet that crisis, we need a balanced long-term approach. We are not going to drill our way out of the crisis, nor are we going to conserve our way out of the crisis, nor are we going to work our way out of the crisis through pure energy efficiency. The bottom line is that clearly we have to do all of these things. The problem with this amendment is it takes safe, clear opportunity for domestic oil and gas production off the table, and we have been doing that for 30 years, taking more and more off the table. That is exactly the sort of not-in-my-backyard mentality which has us where we are today. That is exactly what we have to get beyond if we are going to have a balanced comprehensive approach to meeting our Nation's energy needs. The most ironic thing about this not-in-my-backyard argument, it is not even in their backyard. In fact, it is in Federal territory, and it is more in the backyards of Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana than it is in their backyard. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues want to be so parochial in their approach, then maybe we could make a deal with them: I will not go to Florida beaches for a while. I will just go to Gulf Shores in Alabama, but my colleagues should not demand that and should not use energy from the rest of the country including everything that we explore and drill for and produce in Louisiana. Obviously, we need to get beyond that narrow-mindedness and that parochialism and have a balanced approach, including producing this clean, safe energy.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, due to an airline delay on Monday, May 21, 2001, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote No. 126, the vote on H. Con. Res. 56, expressing the sense of the Congress regarding National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. If I were present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, the opponents of this choice amendment vehemently oppose five demonstration projects, and instead they want a lot of new Federal programs and money for careful education reform. There is just one little flaw in that approach, and that flaw is that we have been passing new Federal education programs for careful education reform over the last 35 years. We have been tinkering with the public education system over the last 35 years. We have been increasing money at the Federal and State and local level over the last 35 years, and student achievement has been declining over those same last 35 years. There are some other constants in those 35 years. American public education remains an enormous monopoly. It used to be the second biggest monopoly on earth after the Soviet state. Now it is the biggest monopoly. What is another constant? That parents, poor parents, have no choice about where to send their kids to school. Mr. Chairman, after 35 years of failure, why do we not simply try something fundamentally new, in a careful, pilot-demonstration-project sort of way? The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) asked for an amendment for increased parental involvement. This is it. What better way to get increased parental involvement than, once and for all, to empower parents over the system, the education bureaucracy? This is empowering parents. So let us try something new and try to turn that declining student achievement around.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of the Vitter-Sessions amendment to H.R. 1. This amendment will prevent discrimination against armed services recruiters and will simply offer them fair access to secondary schools that accept Federal funding. Mr. Chairman, top Department of Defense manpower officials, as well as the actual military recruiters on the ground, in the trenches, if you will, face daunting challenges in beefing up our military with good, new, young recruits. That is particularly true in a flourishing economy. What I find truly dismaying and alarming, however, is that the Pentagon estimates there are some 2,000 schools nationally that actually have policies banning recruiters from their campuses. Should we discriminate against our national interests of a strong armed services by restricting which youth have access to choose a career in the U.S. military? Recruiters have stated that in many cases they have been denied access simply and solely because of school administrators' own personal antimilitary bias or lack of familiarity with the positive aspects of military service. What is going on clearly, Mr. Chairman, is pure, old-fashioned bad political correctness and antimilitary ideology being shoved down the throats of our young people. This amendment simply states that secondary educational institutions that receive Federal funding must allow the same Armed Forces that are sworn to protect and defend the lives of students and teachers access to students in those educational institutions, just like college recruiters, university recruiters, and employment recruiters are given access on those campuses. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the violent terrorist attacks that have wracked Israel and to extend my sympathy to the victims and their families. I would like to especially extend my condolences to Yitzhak Pas, who just two days ago lost his 10-month-old daughter and was himself shot in the legs by a Palestinian sniper. The next day, Islamic Jihad executed two terrorist bombings that rocked Jerusalem, with the clear intention of taking more innocent Israeli lives. During Jerusalem's morning commute, a booby-trapped car was detonated at the side of a busy road, injuring five Israelis. Later in the afternoon, a suicide bomber boarded a bus loaded with students on their way to Hebrew University and detonated his nail-laden bag of explosives, injuring over thirty passengers. Only PA Chairman Yasir Arafat can stop the violence, and of this he clearly has no intention. He has organized and instigated the violence since his rejection of peace at Camp David. I urge my colleagues to sign the Hyde/Lantos letter to President Bush, which calls for a reassessment of the U.S. relations with the Palestinian Authority, and reaffirms the United States' enduring support of Israel in this time of crisis.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for organ donation and the sentiment in H.R. 624 to emphasize the importance discussing organ and tissue donation as a family. I'm proud to say that in my home state of Louisiana, the LSU Health Sciences Center, working with Legacy Donor Foundation and the Louisiana Organ Procurement Agency, developed a model campaign now used by businesses that is very successful in getting employees to sign up to become organ donors at death. Despite these advances, in Louisiana and across our nation, a lot more public education is needed to raise awareness of the critical shortage of organs. In addition, Louisiana has also benefited from the services provided by the Oschner Multi-Organ Transplant Center, where over 50 liver transplants are performed each year. The help these organizations provide to patients in Louisiana are immeasurable. For example, in Louisiana today there are about 1,600 individuals-- mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, sons, daughters--awaiting a life- saving transplant. Nationally, more than 73,000 men, women and children awake in hope each day that it will be the day when they receive their new organ, before it's too late for them. But needs far exceed organ donations each year. One organ donor can save the lives of as many as eight others. Organs from 100 individuals in Louisiana were donated last year, providing 365 organs for transplant. Those 100 selfless humans in Louisiana gave the gift of life to strangers as their legacy. Organ donation is the last act of selfless generosity that one human being can perform for another.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of this conference report on the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000. I speak with personal knowledge of the importance of this effort, because of Lake Pontchartrain, a lake that lies largely within my congressional district. It is vital to the health of the entire region. It is vital to the quality of life, to the economic health of the region, and so too with the other estuaries we address in this bill. It is not a case of people versus the environment somehow. It is people and the environment, hand in hand. Lake Pontchartrain is a good example; 5,000 square miles in the Pontchartrain Basin that encompasses 16 parishes in Louisiana as well as four counties in Mississippi, one of the largest estuaries in the United States. In the middle of it, Lake Pontchartrain, 630 square miles, the second largest lake in the United States after the Great Lakes. The population center, of course, for Louisiana, being surrounded by 1.5 million residents. But we have had problems in that estuary system over the last 60 years. Wetlands loss, human activities, natural forces have all had adverse impact on the basin. Wetlands around the basin have been drained, dredged, and filled and channeled for oil and gas development. Storm water discharges, inadequate wastewater treatment, agricultural activities, all of these activities have significantly degraded water quality. Loss of wetlands due to subsidence, salt water intrusion, and hurricanes have also harmed the basin wildlife population so that 13 species are actually on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's threatened or endangered list. And today, swimming is still not allowed on the south shore due to high levels of pollution. As a result of this, I introduced last September the Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act, and that is included in this conference report. It will create a coordinated, technically sound program that will truly bring restoration of the basin to the next level. I want to thank everyone who was so helpful in passing this legislation in the conference report, certainly including the chairman, the ranking member of the full committee and the subcommittee and the subcommittee staff.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 25, the Ochsner Foundation Hospital will open a spectacular new addition. This $46 million facility will provide 140 square feet of space over three floors. The first floor will include a world-class emergency and trauma center; the second floor will be home to 10 new operating rooms with the most advanced equipment; and the third floor will include 32 new intensive care unit patient rooms. By placing these improved facilities in new construction, operations of the existing facility are not threatened. These improvements will improve the quality of care of patients at Ochsner. They also will provide a better learning environment for the more than 200 medical residents that study each year at Ochsner. The Ochsner Foundation Hospital, at its present location since 1954, is accredited with commendation by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations, an achievement which places the hospital above 87% of all hospitals in the U.S. The hospital admits over 18,000 patients each year for a total of more than 97,000 patient days. The average length of stay at Ochsner is 4.9 days. In addition, each year 30,000 individuals are treated on an emergency outpatient basis. Known for surgical expertise with nearly 12,000 surgery cases handled each year, the hospital is also known for its pediatric, cancer, cardiology, and orthopedic programs. The Ochsner Multi-Organ Transplantation Center performs transplantation surgeries for most major solid organ systems and ranks as the fifth largest heart transplantation program in the country. Ochsner has provided generations of patients from the New Orleans area and from throughout the world with quality medical care. This new addition will permit them to continue providing the highest quality of medical care for future generations.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today with Congressmen Coble and Clement to introduce legislation to eliminate the application of strict criminal liability for maritime transportation-related oil spills. Contrary to the objectives of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, commonly referred to as OPA90, strict criminal liability serves to undermine the safe and reliable maritime transportation of oil products, and prevents timely, effective and cooperative cleanup operations in the diminishing number of situations when an oil spill occurs. Through comprehensive congressional action just a decade ago that led to the enactment and implementation of OPA90, the United States has successfully reduced the number of oil spills in the maritime environment and has established a cooperative public/private partnership to respond effectively to the diminishing number of situations when an oil spill occurs. The Congress, though the enactment of OPA90, carefully balanced the imposition of stronger criminal and civil penalties with the need to promote enhanced cooperation in spill prevention and response efforts. In so doing, the Congress clearly enumerated the circumstances where stringent criminal penalties could be imposed in maritime oil spill incidents. But this carefully crafted approach is being undermined in practice. Antiquated, unrelated ``strict liability'' statutes that do not require any showing of ``knowledge'' or ``intent''--specifically--the Migratory Bird Treaty and the Refuse Act--are increasingly utilized as a basis for criminal investigation and prosecution for oil spill incidents. As stated in a U.S. Coast Guard directive, a company and employees, in the event of an oil spill, ``could be convicted and sentenced to a criminal fine even where [they] took all reasonable precautions to avoid the discharge''. Such turn-of-the-century statutes as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Refuse Act, in effect, have turned every oil spill into a potential crime scene without regard to fault or intent, and thus have undermined the cooperation and responsiveness that Congress sought to foster when it enacted OPA90. Furthermore, strict criminal liability forces responsible members of the marine transportation industry to face and extreme dilemma in the event of an oil spill--provide less than full cooperation and response as criminal defense attorneys will certainly direct, or cooperative full despite the risk of criminal prosecution that would result from any additional actions or statements made during the course of the spill response. The only method available to companies and their employees to avoid the risk of criminal lability completely is to get out of the Marine oil transport business altogether. Mr. Speaker, in May 1998, the House Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee conducted oversight hearing on criminal lability for oil pollution. The Coast Guard, the primary federal maritime agency tasked with the implementation and enforcement of OPA90, testified at that hearing that it does not rely on strict criminal liability statutes in assessing culpability for oil split incidents. With the support of other organizations, including the Chamber of Shipping of America, INTERTANKO, the Transportation Institute, and the Water Quality Insurance Syndicate (WQIS), American Waterways Operators (AWO) and two tank vessel captains testified as to the adverse impact that strict criminal liability has on the oil spill prevention and response objectives of OPA90. Notably, one tank vessel captain observed that ``strict criminal liability does not make [him] do [his] job better; it only produces counterproductive stress''. He continued by stating the following: ``Because of the current [criminal lability'' situation I cannot and will not encourage my children to follow in my footsteps. Nor can I encourage anyone else to enter the marine petroleum transportation business. Yet the industry needs good people. Strict criminal liability is a tremendous deterrent to anyone considering entering the industry at this time.'' Similarly, the other tank vessel captain testified that responsible vessel owners and operators do everything humanly possible to avoid accidents, but that ``the sea being a place of infinite peril, if accidents occur, despite human precautions, we must use all of the marines' skills to contain damage and to get the oil out of the water''. He continued by stating that the ``increased emphasis on applying criminal sanctions to incidents where oil gets into the water, regardless of whether the spill is caused by reckless or grossly negligent human actions, will undermine our ability to respond successfully in the case of the spill.'' The captain further stated that the ``masters, officers and crew of tank vessels should be the best in the business'', but that ``if they are driven from this area by criminal enforcement policies, we will end up with mediocrity where we should have excellence.'' I concur with these observations. Strict criminal liability does not improve the marine transportation industry's ability to attract or retain experienced vessel masters and crews, and does not further the oil spill prevention and response goals of OPA90. Mr. Speaker, again in March 1999, the House Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Subcommittee and the House Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee conducted an oversight hearing to review the implementation of OPA90 on the 10th anniversary of the EXXON VALDEZ oil spill in Alaska. Notably, the issue of criminal liability in oil spill incidents are raised several times during the hearing where AWO, the American Petroleum Institute (API), INTERTANKO, and the Chamber of Shipping of America all stated that the threat of strict criminal liability of oil pollution incidents requires immediate reform and that the issue is their top legislative priority. The Coast Guard recently confirmed that its ``criminal prosecution of environmental crimes is reserved for only the most egregious cases, where evidence of willful misconduct, culpable negligence, failure to report a spill, or attempts to falsify records, is considered with significant harm to the environment or the thread of such harm.'' However, despite the fact that the ``Coast Guard has never a case based on strict liability violations'', other agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice, have prosecuted at least four vessel pollution cases since the enactment of OPA90 using strict criminal liability statutes. The availability and use of such statutes continues to undermine cooperative and effective oil spill prevention and response efforts. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are introducing today will not change the tough criminal sanctions, that were imposed in OPA90. Rather, the legislation will reform the preeminent role of OPA90 as the statute which provides the exclusive criminal penalties for oil spills. In so doing, it will eliminate the unjustified use of strict liability statutes that undermine the very objectives which OPA90 sought to achieve, namely to enhance the prevention of and response to oil spills.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we will all remember Congressman Morrison very fondly, very proudly for his contributions not only to his part of Louisiana, to our home State, but to the Congress and to the country.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to mourn the passing of a former Member of this body, the Honorable Jimmy Morrison of Louisiana. Congressman Morrison was one of my constituents and represented much of the district I now represent. He served in this body from 1944 through 1966. I was only 5 years old when he left this House, so my knowledge, obviously, of his tenure here is limited to conversations with those who were privileged to work with him and to the history books. I do know that he was a Member of whom we can all be proud. In 1944, when he was first elected to office, his district was, like much of the country, a rural area still working to recover from the Great Depression. Congressman Morrison earned a seat on the Committee on Agriculture and the Post Office and Civil Service committee, two assignments that allowed him to address the immediate needs of his constituents. The esteem in which my older constituents hold him speaks volumes of his effectiveness. He had a distinguished record in this body. He always stood up for the downtrodden and spoke very passionately about his commitment to speaking and working for the causes of the downtrodden. Perhaps the clearest example of that was his vocal support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He was extremely instrumental in furthering the needs and the interests of his particular district. He was really personally responsible for seeing to it that the intersection of I-12 and I-55 in his district happened in the area of Hammond, which helped enormously with the growth of the entire Hammond area. He also worked as a leading member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service to establish needed post offices throughout his district. On a more national scale, he introduced the legislation that led to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. He was also very colorful and effective in the realm of politics. Besides being a sterling stump speaker, Mr. Morrison staged what he called the ``convicts parade'' on Canal Street during the 1939-1940 campaign to call attention to the convictions arising out of the Louisiana scandals involving the Huey Long machine. Perhaps those of us in Louisiana politics today should take a lead from that in light of the recent conviction of our former governor, Edwin Edwards. Maybe we need another convicts parade. I can speak from personal knowledge of his life after Congress. He returned full time to his hometown of Hammond and resumed an active role as an attorney and civic leader. Leaving Congress in no way weakened his commitment to public service. He was a strong supporter of Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, the institution that houses his congressional papers. In honor of this support, the University hosts an annual lecture. The James H. Morrison Lecture on Politics and Government has brought leaders from throughout Louisiana and the Nation to Hammond to share their wisdom with the southeastern community. Shortly after joining this body a little over a year ago, I traveled to Hammond to seek Congressman Morrison's advice. It is clear from our conversation that he held the House in great esteem and viewed his opportunity to serve as a great honor accompanied by great responsibilities. I always will remember our discussion and the advice and wisdom he shared. To his wife, Marjorie, to family and many friends, let us all offer our sincere condolences. May they be comforted by the knowledge that he is now blessed with the joy and peace far greater than any on Earth. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Morrison served with only two present Members of the House. One of those with whom he served for quite a bit of time was the honorable gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) could not join with me tonight. He had a pressing engagement off the floor. But he did give me a statement which he asked for me to read on his behalf. This again is from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an honorable, courageous man who passed away last Thursday in his hometown of Hammond, Louisiana. James H. ``Jimmy'' Morrison represented his constituents well, fought for the underdog admirably, and served in this body with distinction. I had the pleasure of serving with Jimmy Morrison, a principled populist and a passionate fighter on behalf of Louisiana and his Sixth District, which he served from 1942- 1966. He was an advocate for working men and women before he came to Congress, beginning his legal career organizing strawberry farmers who fell prey to unfair price fixing. In Congress, he continued to fight to ensure that every individual was entitled to fair treatment in the workplace and given the opportunity to live the American dream. Always alert to the needs of his constituents, he brought back federal dollars home for roads, schools, and post offices. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note Jimmy Morrison's courage. Jimmy Morrison's proudest and most courageous vote, in support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, undoubtedly cost him his seat. His opponent played the race card during a tense time in the South, throwing fuel on the fire of fear and hate, and beat Jimmy in doing so. But that did not matter; Jimmy Morrison knew he was on the side of righteousness, not political expediency. History should remember his courage. I would ask my colleagues to join me in honoring James H. Morrison, a good, descent, courageous public servant who should be remembered both for his accomplishments and the example he set. Those were the comments, as I said, Mr. Speaker, of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) joins me in this special order, and he is here with us on the floor. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect the perspective and thoughts of the gentleman about the IRS. I just want to clarify. Even under the amendment, we would increase the IRS budget over last year over $200 million, and I presume we are not going to give them 200 million more dollars and be laying off people.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It increases funding for high intensity drug trafficking areas, known as HIDTAs, by $25 million and reduces the IRS administration account by a like amount, $25 million. So it clearly is budget neutral. Mr. Chairman, the Antidrug Abuse Act of 1988 authorized the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to designate areas within the U.S. which exhibit serious drug trafficking problems as high intensity drug trafficking areas, HIDTAs. That designation does a few different things. Mainly, it provides additional Federal funds to facilitate cooperation between Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials to really go after in a very geared-up, coordinated way production, manufacture, transportation, distribution, and chronic use of illegal drugs. Since 1990, 31 areas in 40 States have been designated HIDTAs, and I really want to underscore this point for Members because the great majority of Members are directly impacted by this very successful HIDTA effort. Most Members are directly impacted by a HIDTA in their area. As I said, HIDTAs have been very successful, enormously successful, because they coordinate Federal, local, State law enforcement. They are an amazingly important clearinghouse. Let me give an example from my area, the Gulf Coast HIDTA. It is located in my district, and in many other districts along the Gulf Coast, last year targeted 65 drug trafficking and money laundering organizations and successfully dismantled, really dismantled, 47. Some of these include long-standing organizations which have long been the targets of local law enforcement. What does that mean? It means a lot for my city, my State. New Orleans reports an average decrease in crime of about 15 percent. Five of our other six major cities show a decrease in the total crime index of 1 to 14 percent. Murder rates in five other cities have declined 5 to 24 percent. National averages are 4 to 9 percent respectively. Now, the Gulf Coast HIDTA is not the only reason. We have been doing other things locally, but it is one important reason, because of the coordination, it provides for Federal, State, and local law enforcement. HIDTAs around the country continue to face new challenges, and we need to fund them properly and to keep up with the challenge. That is why I am afraid this budget is really inadequate. The President did not provide additional money over last year for HIDTAs, nor did this bill. I know the chairman and the ranking member want to continue to work on HIDTAs in the conference process, but I really think we really need to vote a bill out of the House that provides additional funding. So that is what my amendment would do, $25 million. The offset is the IRS administrative account. If we look at the IRS budget overall, the increase in this budget this year for the IRS is $231 million. So still after my amendment there would be a very significant increase in the IRS account, and we are talking about a total account of $7 billion. So certainly this is not going to do any damage to that account. When we look at IRS activity and their track record lately, certainly we are trying to make improvements with positive reform efforts; but certainly in the last full GAO report, which is 1999, there were some very glaring problems in the IRS. In one case it took 18 months for the IRS to correct an input error, and that resulted in a wrong assessment of $160,000 against a taxpayer who was really due a refund; 4,800 employees hired to process taxes before the proper fingerprinting and other checks were made; on and on and on, some clear problems, abuses in the IRS. There are really two frames of mind about how to deal with that. Some people look at these gross problems and errors and want to throw more money at it. Personally, I look at these dramatic problems and say we need to show the IRS we mean business and penalize bad behavior, not reward it. But certainly in any case, even after my amendment, the IRS administrative account would get a very significant increase of $200 million, a total budget of $7 billion. Certainly, I think in that context this shifting of $25 million from the IRS administration account to the HIDTAs, which is not getting any increase this year, which is very much on the front line of the war on drugs, is fully justified.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to this bill that will send a strong signal to the State Department that this body insists that they enforce the law. This amendment lets State know that we want them to require the Chinese Communist Government to request approval for their purchase of an apartment building overlooking the Pentagon, and that this body wants State to deny that approval. At issue is the purchase of an Arlington apartment building by the Xinhua News Agency. The Chinese Government owns Xinhua and the Foreign Missions Act of 1985 requires foreign embassies to obtain prior authorization from our State Department for the purchase of U.S. property, and it explicitly covers operations like Xinhua. Furthermore, the authoritative Chinese intelligence operations, published by the Naval Institute Press, reports that in a number of publicized spy scandals intelligence officers used Xinhua to provide operations cover. The Foreign Missions Act clearly is applicable to the purchase of this building by Xinhua. The name of the complex, Pentagon Ridge Apartments, vividly describes its strategic location. Occupancy of this building will allow Chinese intelligence operatives to gather information using a variety of means. These include direct observation via telescope of documents being viewed in outside offices, the collection of electronic impulses emanated by computer screens in the building and the use of laser microphones to eavesdrop on conversations. In short, this building is an ideally suited spy tower designed to capture our military secrets. If this were a unique occurrence, there would be no need perhaps for this body to act, but unfortunately this is just one more in a sorry series of security breakdowns that have taken place on the Clinton administration's watch. Missile secrets to China, laughable security at Los Alamos, Russian microphones and missing laptops at the State Department, the list just goes on and on, and unfortunately this is just one more item on the list. In this case, our security agencies did not even know the Chinese Government interest in procuring this building, a strategically important building. Now, a few weeks ago, Energy Secretary Richardson blamed the University of California for the missile computer hard drives at Los Alamos. What will Secretary of State Albright do, blame the Arlington Board of Realtors for this fiasco? I recognize that this amendment covers spending for the next fiscal year and would not prevent State Department approval this year, but I hope that a very strong show of support for the amendment will encourage the State Department to do the right thing and block Xinhua's acquisition of this strategically located building. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, with regard to the issue of the certification, if the certification language were in this amendment, it would then be subject to a point of order. So for that very simple parliamentary reason, that certification language cannot be put in this amendment on the House floor. Should the process, as in previous years, yield that certification language, I would not object; and I would suggest we should move the process along by passing this amendment as it has evolved in previous years. Also, if, as the gentleman on the other side said in opposition, this amendment is not necessary, then neither he nor the administration should object to it. In fact, I believe the standing consultative commission does offer this administration the opportunity to implement and to push forward unratified new treaties. That is clearly inappropriate. The way to push forward these treaties, if they are in the best interest of the country, is to submit them to the United States Senate and have the Senate decide the issue. That is their constitutional duty; and, in fact, it is beyond debate. The administration has agreed that if it is a new treaty, it must be submitted to the Senate. So this amendment is merely a very wise, precautionary measure and may, in fact, yield the certification language as this appropriation bill moves through the process. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.