Robert Wexler

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, almost a year and a half ago I received and began for me what was the proudest day of my professional life, being sworn in as a Member of the United States House of Representatives. I was elected as a Democrat from the State of Florida. But far more important than being elected as a Democrat, even far more important than being elected as a Floridian, I was an American, an American first and American only. And I came to this Congress with a devotion and a respect of the principles of the United States of America, for the basic freedoms that we enjoy in our Bill of Rights. Then I listened to debate after debate in this House, where I disagreed vehemently with the Speaker with respect to his policies on Medicare, or Social Security, or education or the environment, and I disagreed vehemently at times with the direction that the Republican leadership of this Congress wishes to take this Nation. But never would I dare, never would I dare question the patriotism and the devotion to this country of the Speaker or any Republican Member of the Congress. Never would I dare suggest that a Republican Member of this Congress has any less love for this country than I do, because I may differ with him on a policy, and I am confident that most Americans appreciate that those people who are elected to this Congress, regardless of their political beliefs, and those few individuals in our history that have been so privileged to lead our Nation as our President, have anything but a complete devotion to our country and our national security. Yet, in the last months we have seen extraordinary allegations thrown at this President. Not simple allegations, but allegations that rise to the level of being involved in a murder plot, allegations rising to the level of being involved in a rape, allegations involving at one time or another almost every crime imaginable. But the height was reached this week when Members of this House accused the President of the United States and the administration of acting in a treasonous fashion, of endangering the national security of the United States. And over what? What evidence is presented? Taken in its most simplistic form, the allegation is the Chinese Government sent some money, a significant amount of money, $100,000, to the national Democratic Party, and then the President made a foreign policy decision where he said, ``There is the money. Now we are going to send some missile technology to China that will endanger the United States, that will create a nuclear proliferation program.'' Let us look at the specifics of the allegations. The money in question, the alleged money, did not wind up in the Democratic coffers until July and August of 1996. But what the accusers failed to say is the President issued the waiver in March of 1996. And what the accusers failed to say is that the money was then given back after it was given, and then after the money was given back, another waiver was issued. If you listen to the accusers, you would think President Clinton dreamed up this idea of waivers. No, the first waivers were given by President Bush, and President Bush decided it was in our national interest to allow American companies to send off their communications satellites because there were not enough American rockets going up to do so. These were communication satellites. And if you listen to the allegations, you would think we just handed them to the Chinese, when in fact it was American companies that handed them to our Department of Defense. It was the American Department of Defense that transported the satellite, the American Department of Defense that put the satellite in its proper place, and it was guarded the whole way by the American Department of Defense. Let us get down right to the bottom line of the argument, that money was given and a political decision made. If that is in fact the case, then all of us in Washington need to be brave and stand up and admit that all of us are guilty then, because whenever there is a contribution given, we will act on the contribution and do what the contributor said. And yes, yes, then it happens every day. And then, yes, it would seem it would be legitimate to argue that because the tobacco companies have given millions to the Republican party, that is why they are giving them tax breaks. But I would not dare suggest that nexus, because I would not have the audacity to suggest that another Member of Congress is corrupt or is corrupted. And for Members of this Congress to suggest that the President of the United States has in some way endangered our national security, without a single shred of evidence, is there a single shred of evidence that suggests that this President took the money, knew what he was doing, and then said, send the missile, send the satellite to be on the missile because of the money? Not a single shred of evidence. It is treasonous, they say, without a single shred of evidence.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. This is a very important bill. This country is built on rights and responsibilities. It is the job of the government to protect the rights of the citizens and to make sure that they discharge their responsibilities. There is no responsibility more sacred than that of a parent to a child, to provide for, to care for, to make certain that their children are well. The ideal situation, I believe, is one in which both parents share the child-rearing responsibility. But even in the too-numerous single- parent households, the other parent has a responsibility, at the least, to contribute financially. There was a period where we, as a society, did not enforce that obligation very rigorously. I am glad to say that that period is over. Through accommodation of stiff penalties and aggressive enforcement strategies, child support collections are way up in the past few years. This is a lot like what has happened with drunk driving. By toughening law enforcement and relentlessly sending the message that what was once tolerated will not be tolerated any longer, we have been able to change behavior for the better. This bill will make a significant improvement in current law. It is aimed at people who move from one State to another to avoid paying child support. A custodial parent in Florida can have a very difficult time trying to collect child support from a parent who has moved, for instance, to Ohio. In 1992, Congress passed the first law establishing Federal penalties for crossing State lines to evade child support. This statute has been an important piece of the very successful effort by the Clinton administration to increase child support collections. Under this current law, first offense is a misdemeanor. H.R. 3811 will toughen the law so particularly egregious first offenses, those that involve a debt of more than $10,000 or one that has been outstanding for more than 2 years will be felonies punishable by up to 2 years in prison. I want to note that H.R. 3811 is identical to H.R. 2925, which was introduced by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and marked up by the Committee on the Judiciary. I want to commend both the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for their leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who introduced the bill with identical language that we are speaking of now.

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

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2829. The body armor should be standard equipment for police officers. When a new officer joins the force, he or she is issued a badge and a gun. A bulletproof vest should be part of that package. When a police officer walks out of the station house each morning, that officer is putting his or her life at risk in order to protect the rest of us. Thankfully, there is equipment available that will minimize the risk; not eliminate it, certainly, but minimize it. You can walk into virtually any big city police precinct and find an officer whose life may have been saved by a bulletproof vest. Unfortunately, rural and suburban officers are increasingly at risk. An officer making a routine traffic stop on a highway has no idea whatsoever whether the driver is armed and how the driver will respond. We owe it to the men and women who undertake the responsibility of being police officers to make sure that they have the potentially lifesaving equipment that is available. This bill would authorize $25 million a year in grants to state and local governments to purchase body armor for law enforcement officers. This is not a Federal giveaway. The grant recipient must put up half of the funds. The real purpose is to use a Federal incentive to get local police departments to see vests as standard equipment. I commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for their sponsorship of this bill. I understand the differences between the House and Senate versions of this bill have been resolved and that the bill offered by the gentleman from Florida (Chairman McCollum) incorporates the amendments necessary to harmonize the two versions so that we can get this bill on the president's desk by the end of this week. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the leading sponsor of the bill.

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rothman.

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, if I thought for one minute that a drug exchange, needle exchange program for drug addicts would increase the likelihood of teenagers in America using drugs, I would not support it. But common sense dictates that there will not be a single 16-year-old teenager in America who says, oh, now I can go get a needle exchange, rather than going to the corner drugstore and buy one for five cents or ten cents, and now I am going to get addicted to heroin and ha, ha, ha. Having nothing to do with common sense, it tells us the way in which we prevent people from getting AIDS, the way in which we prevent people from spreading AIDS to people who are innocent is to make certain the needles they are using are clean. The question is not whether we are for or against drug abuse. We are all against it. The question is simple. Should drug addicts be using clean needles or should they be using AIDS-infected needles? And the taxpayers of America are better off if the needles are clean rather than AIDS infected, and all Americans who do not use drugs are better off if we make certain that those who do are not infected with AIDS needles.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is the same brutal dictator today that he was when he gassed his own people with chemical weapons, starved them to death and machine-gunned them in mass graves. The only difference is that today he has been given a new lease on life by the United Nations. Don't get me wrong. I respect the negotiation effort by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in Iraq. He deserves the world's gratitude for avoiding war--for the time being. Annan's new agreement with Iraq, however, will not end the long term conflict between Iraq and the world community, and may ultimately create more problems than it resolves. One element of the agreement calls for a ``Special Group'' of senior diplomats and U.N. inspection experts to inspect the eight Presidential Sites in Iraq. With the inclusion of diplomats and politicians in the inspection effort, secrecy and surprise inspections will be compromised, and U.N. efforts to discover and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be severely handicapped. All of a sudden, international politics and the greed of countries like France and Russia for big profits in trade with Iraq are paramount to a successful U.N. effort to inspect and destroy dangerous weapons. By conceding in the U.N.-Iraq Agreement to bring the issue of lifting sanctions against Iraq to the Security Council, presumably before all inspections are completed and weapons destroyed, the world has handed Saddam Hussein a significant political victory. In fact, it would be a serious mistake to ease economic sanctions against Iraq. President Clinton correctly stated in his Pentagon speech that sanctions have already cost Hussein $110 billion, and the President aptly wondered how much stronger Hussein's armed forces would be today without sanctions. Bellyaching about the U.N.-Iraq Agreement, however, does not serve American interests well. Equally shortsighted is the effort to gear up for some future invasion of Iraq while our stated objective remains limited to the ``substantial reduction'' of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability. What the United States must do is commit herself to help the Iraqi people liberate their nation from Hussein's dictatorial reign. The Clinton Administration has incorrectly concluded that the only way to overthrow Hussein is with a massive ground invasion. This assessment grossly overestimates Iraq's military strength. The weaknesses of Iraq's forces were exposed during the Gulf War in 1991, and the Iraqi military is significantly weaker now, in great part because of the cumulative effect of years of sanctions. On the other hand, American intelligence and military preparedness to successfully strike Iraq are significantly stronger. Several Middle East experts, including Ambassador Paul Wolfowitz, Dean of International Studies at Johns Hopkins, have questioned the notion that only a comprehensive ground invasion by the U.S. can bring down Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that if we take the following steps, in addition to preparing for military action when the next inevitable crisis with Saddam Hussein occurs, we will help to facilitate democracy in Iraq and rid the world of a rogue dictator: 1. Challenge the claim of Saddam Hussein as the legitimate ruler of Iraq. No doubt this goal was made more difficult by the credibility Hussein has garnered through his new international agreement. 2. Make clear the intention of the United States to recognize a provisional government--a Free Iraq--and start with the Iraqi National Congress. 3. Find a mechanism to make the frozen assets of Iraq in the U.S. and elsewhere available to the anti-Hussein forces. The U.S. and U.K. alone have over $1.6 billion in frozen assets which should be used to finance democratic forces in Iraq. 4. Lift economic sanctions from regions in Iraq that are wrested from Saddam Hussein's control, and make oil resources available to the anti- Hussein forces for humanitarian needs and economic development. 5. Provide weapons and logistical support to the resistance, as well as air cover for liberated areas within the Southern and Northern no- fly zones. Saddam Hussein remains nothing less than an international war criminal who should stand trial for his crimes against humanity. He has broken every agreement he has made with the United States and the world community since the Gulf War. He will no doubt once again subvert this agreement, and when he does, we must be prepared to initiate military air strikes immediately aimed specifically at destroying Saddam's personal power infrastructure, including his communications network and the Republican guard. Seven years after the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein is still a menace to his own people and to world peace. Only by assisting the Iraqi people to liberate themselves will we prevent Hussein from becoming an even more serious threat seven years from now.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this bill and commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) along with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer), the ranking member, for their work on this bill. Mr. Chairman, cell phone cloning is the hottest new scam on the street. Cloning costs phone companies and their customers more than $650 million a year. It lets drug cartels operate in secrecy, away from the reach of law enforcement surveillance. Cloned cell phones are rapidly becoming the main communication network of drug runners and street gangs. The reason is that cloned phones not only allow the criminals to cheat the phone company, but they also evade wire taps. A drug dealer will often have 20 or more cloned phones, constantly switching among them to cover his tracks. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has already explained how the cloning process works. This bill will ban the copycat machines that criminals use to make cloned phones. These machines are freely advertised in magazines and on the Internet from anywhere from $1100 to $2500. Yet the only reason anyone would buy these devices is to defraud innocent consumers. Under current law, copycat machines are illegal only if the government can prove an intent to defraud. That is often impossible to prove and it permits unscrupulous manufacturers to keep making the machines and offering them for sale. This bill will ban the copycat machines outright. There has been one concern raised about the bill. Some cell phone companies are concerned that the language of the bill might inadvertently apply to machinery used by legitimate companies to test or reprogram their equipment. I understand that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) will offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute that cures this problem. I expect to fully support the bill after that amendment. I also want to note that with the amendment, the wireless industry fully supports the bill. In fact, at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, representatives from both the cell phone industry and from law enforcement testified about the rapid increase they are seeing in cloning activity and the need to take these copycat devices out of circulation among the general public. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCollum amendment. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has described what this amendment does. It simply makes clear that FCC license carriers can use the type of equipment described by the bill for their legitimate business purposes. On behalf of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) I want to thank Chairman McCollum and his counsel, Glen Schmitt, for their willingness to work through this issue. I also want to make it clear because there have been some questions on this point that the bill before us does not affect scanners. Scanners do have legitimate uses and will remain available.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, the scene is becoming all too familiar. Outdoor cafes in crowded marketplaces, baby strollers and shoppers. Three bombs explode, limbs are strewn everywhere, many people are dead, and more are badly hurt. This scene, this complete disregard for human life, and this sharpened sense of despair in Israel are--tragically-- today's reality. Prospects for peace in the Middle East are bleak. No Israeli response to the recent bombings in Jerusalem would be too harsh. No other nation on Earth would exercise the extraordinary restraint that Israel has exhibited under these horrific circumstances. Time, however, is running out. In the midst of this terror and despair, what can be done? As a member of the International Relations Committee in Congress, there is no doubt in my mind that peace in the Middle East now depends in great part on America's demanding--with all of her might and persuasion--that the Palestinian Authority and Israel strictly comply with and implement the Oslo accords. Chairman Arafat must stop his deceit and, for the first time, take bold steps to stamp out terror. The evidence is irrefutable that Hamas and the Islamic Jihad operate freely in territory that Arafat now controls. There can be no more trite justifications for Palestinian violence. Arafat's primary obligation is to employ every method to convince Palestinians that peace with Israel is desirable and that violence against Israel is unacceptable and counterproductive. Most urgently, Arafat must garner the political courage and strength to impose the Oslo accords on the dissident extremists--first by persuasion and ultimately by force. If Arafat is unable or unwilling to control the violence, the sad reality is that Arafat is useless and irrelevant, and so are the Oslo accords. Some argue that Israel too has failed to honor its side of the Oslo bargain, citing free passage for Palestinians, the airport in Gaza, and construction at Har Homah. It is undeniable, however, that with respect to its primary obligation--to turn over strategic portions of the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinian Authority--Israel has made a substantial and good faith effort. Netanyahu now refuses to make further concessions until Arafat stops the killings. Netanyahu is correct, and the entire free world is morally obligated to support him. As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visits the Middle East, she must wave several weighty carrots and sticks: First, $100 million in American aid to the Palestinian Authority should be suspended until President Clinton certifies that Palestinian leaders have made meaningful efforts to stop terrorism. Second, the PLO must outlaw Hamas and Islamic Jihad, just as Israel and other nations have declared specific terrorist groups illegal. Such action, simplistic as it may seem, would give the PLO greater legal authority to arrest terrorists and close their facilities. Arrests must be followed by legitimate prosecutions of terrorists and appropriate jail sentences. If need be, the terrorists should be extradited for imprisonment to the United States. Third, the PLO must seize all illegal weapons in territories under its control; and Fourth, the PLO must stop its vicious anti-Israel propaganda as mandated by the Oslo accords. If Arafat shows the will to fight terrorism, then the Secretary of State should commit full American support for an expedited negotiating track to resolve all outstanding issues in the peace process within one year. These issues include the final status of Jerusalem, the prospect of a Palestinian entity, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. To his credit, Netanyahu appears committed to an expedited, full peace negotiation. If Arafat is genuine in his desire for peace, he too should engage in such negotiations with strict timelines. An expedited peace process would showcase for the world which leaders are willing to take risks for peace and which are not. Those who choose a path destined for more violence must be shunned by the international community and incur the economic and military wrath of the Western world. For Arafat, the choice is clear--embrace peace or embrace Hamas. He cannot do both.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and would like to speak to the aspect of the amendment that I believe cuts really close to the American people. Oftentimes when this Congress speaks about foreign affairs, many Americans do not perceive it as something that touches their lives in any concrete fashion. One aspect of this amendment, I think, cuts very close to the people in my State, Florida, and in fact to the people of the United States. That is, maybe it is mundane, but that is the ability of Americans to obtain their passports and their visas in a timely manner. In my community, if individuals need to get a passport in a fast fashion, they are likely to stand in line for 3 hours, 4 hours, 5 hours, sometimes over a couple of days. If there is an emergency, if there is a business need, a family need, oftentimes it will be very difficult to accomplish that purpose of getting a visa or a passport in a quick fashion. When this Government was shut down a year and a half ago, extraordinary havoc was created throughout Florida, and I can only imagine throughout the Nation, in the private sector by business people who could not conduct their business. Now, in fairness, this amendment does not shut down Government, but what it does is it reduces the amount of opportunity, the ability of the State Department to improve their services with respect to Americans obtaining their passports and visas. The sponsor of the amendment very eloquently spoke of his three little children and the tax burden that they will incur as they grow up. Well, I too, have three little children, but I would respectfully suggest that the manner in which all of America's children will have the ability to pay for our Government in the 21st century and pay for our obligations to our veterans and our senior citizens and our military forces and the obligation of what we call the American way of life, the manner in which we do that is not to stick our head in the sand and pretend that our opportunities cease at our borders; rather, I believe, it is common sense that the manner in which America's children will have the opportunities in the 21st century to pay for the kind of society we want is to increase our opportunities. Increasing opportunities overseas means to have a very valid presence overseas. The way in which we increase our economic opportunities, our ability to travel, our ability to trade, our ability to make certain that there is peace rather than conflict is not by cutting money in today's budget, in today's bill, which has already been cut from the President's budget proposal; but rather it is to keep it where the President ultimately wanted. To do otherwise, I believe, would be to defeat the exact purpose that the sponsor of the amendment seeks, and that is to make there be less of a burden on today's children for tomorrow.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. It is an appropriate expression of congressional support for United States assistance programs in support of democratic and free market reform in Latvia and Lithuania. I simply just urge very strong support for the Slaughter amendment.

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)