Robert Wexler

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman). (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to think twice before believing recent rumors that the Iranian government has moderated its hardline policies towards the United States and our allies in the Middle East. The so-called moderate Iranian government has not ended its program to build weapons of mass destruction, and it continues to support terrorist groups that commit up conscionable acts of death and destruction. The Iranian government also remains adamantly opposed to the Middle East peace process. Make no mistake about it, an unstable Iranian regime with weapons of mass destruction is a threat to the entire world and to the fragile peace evolving in the Middle East. Since the end of the Cold War, missile and weapons technology has flowed unhindered from foreign companies to Iran. The United States must lead the fight to stop foreign companies from exporting their services and technologies to Iran. H.R. 1883 allows the United States to sanction foreign companies contributing to Iran's weapons buildup. Russian companies in particular have been guilty of providing the Iranian government with weapons technology. The Iran Nonproliferation Act holds the Russian government and Russian companies accountable for the flow of technology and services reportedly transferred to Iran. The greatest threat to the security of the United States in the next century will be posed by nations that are governed by unstable regimes like Iran, Iraq, and North Korea that are developing weapons of mass destruction. Our own intelligence agencies have warned us that in a short time these nations may have the capability to strike cities in the United States. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation and send a strong message that the United States will not tolerate individuals and companies aiding rogue regimes in their deadly efforts. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Burton Amendment to H.R. 2606, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, which would limit U.S. foreign aid to India. This amendment, which cuts essential aid to India, sends the wrong message to the government in Dehli. U.S./India relations have significantly improved since the end of the cold war. In reaching out to the United States and the international community, India has undertaken dramatic economic policy reforms to become a market-oriented economy. As of today, the United States is India's largest trading partner and largest investor. The Indian government has also taken constructive steps to improve its human rights record. We must recognize the Indian government's efforts and progress, and assist them in taking further steps to reduce human rights abuses in their country. Although the Indian government has made progress with respect to economic reforms and human rights, they face a much tougher goal of providing for a population of close to a billion people with a rapid population growth of 1.7 percent per year. Forty percent of India's urban population and half of the rural population live below the poverty level. The Burton amendment would cut crucial U.S. humanitarian aid to India that is desperately needed for disease control, population control, malnutrition, and rural development. India which is an important strategic ally of the United States borders Iran and Communist China. Like the United States, India has many security concerns, including the direct threat of terrorism. Radical terrorist outfits trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including that of Osam Bin Laden, have targeted and executed innocent civilians in Kashmir. I believe that the United States and India have already begun to see the benefits of improved bilateral relations. Unfortunately, this amendment reverses the gains made between our two democracies and denies humanitarian assistance to the most needy in India. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I am here to support Italian Americans who were singled out during World War II as enemy aliens of the United States. Unfortunately, like many Japanese Americans who were persecuted during World War II, over 600,000 Italian Americans were subjected to harsh treatment by the American government, including being evicted from their homes and subjected to strict curfews. Hundreds of Italian Americans were sent to internment camps. It is unconscionable that these hard working Americans were denied fundamental human rights and freedoms. Like many other ethnic communities in the United States, Italian Americans fought bravely in World War II and played a major role in defeating the Axis powers. However, many Italian Americans who remained in the United States during World War II faced discrimination including the families of soldiers who were injured or killed in Europe and in the Pacific. I believe that it is incumbent upon the President and the United States government to acknowledge this dark chapter of our nation's history. Italian Americans who were victims of persecution are entitled to no less, and America needs to acknowledge the truth. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2442.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Nadler amendment, strong support, and in doing so acknowledge and recognize that H.R. 1691 and the sponsor, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), seek to address very important wrongs that are occurring in the United States today. There are, in fact, numerous examples of planning and zoning decisions that are being made for the either inherent or obvious purpose of denying individuals or groups their religious freedom. In my own community in South Florida, oftentimes there are autopsies that are conducted in violation or contrary to people's religious beliefs, when there is little or no State purpose for doing so. And the State acts either out of insensitivity or just out of lack of knowledge for people's religious beliefs. And I believe the purpose of this bill would be to correct those violations, and that I support and compliment. But in doing so, there also is a flip side. The flip side is that in protecting one group's religious freedom, which is noble and certainly applaudable, we are, to some degree, and we can argue to what degree that is, but to some degree jeopardizing the rights of others. And while the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) may suggest that people are trying to force themselves on maybe more traditional people in this country, I do not see it that way. What these so-called less traditional people are trying to do is work. They are trying to live in an apartment. And if that is forcing themselves on someone, well then, that is exactly why we need the Nadler amendment. Although, although, what the Nadler amendment seeks to do is both protect religious freedom and protect civil rights. This bill, as it is currently drafted, puts us in an untenable situation, civil rights versus religious liberty. Support the Nadler bill.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1175, introduced by Congressman Lantos. Mr. Chairman, for seventeen years, the fate of three missing Israeli soldiers has remained a mystery that has haunted their families and their nations. On June 11, 1982, Zachary Baumel, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen, Yehuda Katz, and Zvi Feldman were captured in northeastern Lebanon, in a battle with Syrian and Palestinian forces. The PLO had custody of the three soldiers for the first year and a half of their captivity. When a pro-Syrian faction split with the PLO, they took the three Israeli soldiers with them and their whereabouts are unknown. The Syrian government currently claims they have no knowledge concerning the fate of the soldiers. However, western journalists and Syrian radio reported that the three soldiers were paraded through Damascus several hours after they were captured. Three weeks later, on July 4, 1982, the Syrian secret police delivered four bodies for burial to the Jewish cemetery in Damascus claiming they were the bodies of the Israeli soldiers. The Syrians also provided name tags, which Israeli intelligence sources reported were supplied by the PLO's Fatah faction. Fifteen months later, the Red Cross exhumed the four graves, finding only one Israeli body. The most recent evidence which indicates that Zachary Baumel may still be alive came from PLO leader Yasser Arafat. In 1993, Arafat delivered half of Zachary Baumel's dog tags to Israeli officials. Chairman Arafat promised that more information was forthcoming, but it was never received. As recently as 1997, information has been obtained that Baumel, along with two other men, may still be in custody in Lebanon. With the resumption of the Middle East peace process, the State Department should urge the Syrian and Lebanese governments, along with Chairman Arafat, to secure information that will resolve the fate of the missing soldiers. The State Department should communicate to these governments that their willingness to assist efforts in the search for the missing soldiers will be considered among other factors in the provision of future economic and foreign assistance. The plight of the missing soldiers was brought to my attention by Miriam and Yona Baumel, who have asked me to help find more information concerning their son and the other missing soldiers and to secure their return. They believe, as I do, that the soldiers may still be alive. One cannot imagine the pain of uncertainty and fear they have felt for the past 17 years waiting to hear about the fate of their son. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 1175. The three missing Israeli soldiers are the longest held hostages in the Middle East, and it is time that they are released to return to their families.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, 200 million guns flood the streets of America. Two hundred million guns arm us like a Nation at war with itself, and this Congress does virtually nothing. We are accomplices when 13 of our children are gunned down every day. We are accomplices when a child finds the family gun and ends the life of a neighbor. We are accomplices when the leading cause of death among young African American men is homicide by guns. A teen without a gun cannot massacre his classmates. A toddler without a gun cannot shoot his playmate. The NRA and Charlton Heston are writing our gun laws. Where is the outrage? Congress is playing Russian roulette with the lives of our children. America, where is the outrage? Support the Democratic substitute.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, 192 million guns flood our streets. The Littleton tragedy galvanized Americans to action. And what is this Congress doing? Instead of gun control, we are doing remote control. Instead of worrying about kids and gun shows, we are worried about TV shows. Every parent in America understands that kids are exposed to too much violence. But to only condemn the entertainment industry and not the gun industry is deadly. So let us get this straight, America. Instead of going after the NRA, Congress is going after NBC. Mr. Speaker, 10,000 people were murdered by handguns in America in 1996. Only 30 in Great Britain, 15 in Japan. Those countries have violent entertainment too, but they have something we do not: real gun control. So wake up, Congress. It is not just the entertainment. It is the guns.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about fairness. I am here to talk about an injustice done to over 11 million senior citizens, who were born between the years 1917 and 1926. I am here to talk about the Notch Fairness Act of 1999, legislation which I have filed to correct a grievous wrong done to citizens known as Notch Babies. These are the individuals who lived through the depression, served our country during World War II and Korea, and are the real architects of the vibrant nation we are today. Unfortunately, an amendment to the Social Security Act in 1977 dramatically and unjustly rendered less Social Security benefits of this segment of our population. Although it was intended to help bolster the Social Security Trust Fund by re-computing the benefit formula for present and future beneficiaries, the amendment inadvertently paved the way for consequences which severely and negatively impacted Notch Babies. The new formula, along with unforeseen economic conditions in the late seventies, resulted in lower benefits for all members in the ``Notch'' group. On average, Notch Babies suffered significantly, receiving $1,000 less a year in Social Security benefits than those who came before and after them. With Notch Babies now in their mid-to-late seventies and early eighties, it is more important than ever that we move quickly to compensate them for the economic hardships they continue to endure. Fortunately, conditions are right for us to act. With a current budget surplus of $70 billion, a predicted surplus of $107 billion for Fiscal Year 2000, and further surpluses expected for the next fifteen years, we have a tremendous economic opportunity to correct the injustices Notch Babies have been forced to bear to this day. My legislation would provide Notch Babies with a one-time $5,000 lump sum settlement or an equivalent increase in benefits in future years. In an age when COLA disbursements are at an all-time low and the costs of prescription drugs are rising exponentially, Notch Babies would greatly benefit from these additional funds, to which they are rightfully entitled. It is never too late to right wrongs committed in the past. This is the right time to pass the Notch Fairness Act of 1999 to make sure that Notch Babies receive the money they are legitimately due.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are debating today is unfortunately nothing but a sham because it subverts the intent of the 147 Republican and Democratic cosponsors of the Wexler-Clyburn-Forbes resolution. Our bipartisan resolution, House Resolution 35, was introduced seven weeks ago, and confronts head-on the ghosts of America's past, condemning the racism that has divided us as a Nation and exposing the insidious and hateful agenda of the Council of Conservative Citizens, the CCC. The Watts resolution was introduced just Thursday. It has, I understand, no cosponsors. It confronts nothing. It was rushed to the floor today without committee consideration. The Watts resolution is designed only to derail our resolution and, if successful, hands the CCC an unconscionable victory. Revealing the true identity of the Council of Conservative Citizens is the right thing to do. The CCC attempts to mask its hateful ideology by posing as a mainstream conservative organization, but the racist agenda of this group is undeniable. The CCC has directed its hatred towards millions of Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Jewish Americans, homosexuals, immigrants and virtually all minorities. Listen, listen to what the leader of the CCC said about his group's strategy. I will replace his use of the N word with the word ``blacks.'' ``The Jews are going to fall from the inside, not from the outside, and the ``blacks'' will be a puppet on a string for us. The power is not out there in the gun, it is inside Congress. . .We've got to do it from the inside.'' The CCC is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and with racially motivated crimes on the rise, it is imperative that Congress go on record exposing them for the bigots they are. That is why the alternative resolution before us today is empty. It gives lip service to condemning racism, but it does not specifically cite the CCC, nor does it strengthen our civil rights laws. It does nothing real. It offers cover, not content. In 1994 when this Congress voted overwhelmingly to condemn the racist, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic speech of Khalid Abdul Muhammad of the Nation of Islam, there was no outcry about singling out one man for criticism. There was no rush to promote a generic statement about all racism, instead of identifying a specific and dangerous speech that had outraged millions of Americans. So I guess what it all comes down to is that when it is a black person who is a racist it is okay for Congress to condemn him, but when it is a white person or a white group that is racist, then Congress does nothing, and we become, as the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Henry Hyde) said in 1994, accessories by silence, by inaction. I respectfully urge Members to vote no on House Resolution 121. Let us bring House Resolution 35 to the floor for a meaningful vote.

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, to clear the record the minority leader has not spoken to the Council of Conservative Citizens. His civil rights record is excellent and he is a sponsor of the resolution condemning the CCC.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is on the verge of a tragic mistake that will reverberate for centuries and alter the course of American history. Impeachment is not the ultimate censure. Impeachment is devastating. Impeachment is enduring. Impeachment is momentous. If we dumb-down impeachment and make it easier for future Congresses to impeach presidents, we will forever weaken the institution of the presidency. The Founding Fathers knew this. They could have said a president could be impeached for any crime, but they chose to designate crimes only of the gravity of treason and bribery. To impeach for anything less than the highest of crimes is a distortion of the Constitution and hands a tremendous weapon to our present and future enemies who will point to a weakened president and ultimately a weakened nation. That is why the Founding Fathers knew that low crimes should wait, that the strength of our national leader, the sovereignty of our Nation trump all but the gravest of charges, those which subvert our government. If my colleagues have even the slightest doubt as to whether this President's actions rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, then they do a tremendous disservice to our Nation and to our standing in the world if they vote to impeach. So do not think for one moment that this is a free vote, that the Senate is the real player in the impeachment drama. We have the power to stop this travesty, to pull the curtain on this theater of the absurd. This impeachment vote is bigger than Bill Clinton. It is bigger than all of us. I implore my colleagues, do not weaken the presidency in an effort to punish this President. This is about that delicate balance of power that is the bedrock of our democracy. It is about due process and fairness. It is about safeguarding our privacy and curtailing the intrusiveness of government. It is about nothing less than our humanity. What have we become when we impeach a president over an extramarital affair and the lies to conceal it, when we lose all sense of proportion? What have we become when we enter a new era of sexual McCarthyism, when the boundaries of people's private lives are no longer respected? Have we no sense of decency? What have we become when our partisan warring does not stop at the water's edge but spills over and bestows upon Saddam Hussein the hope of a divided America? What have we become? I fear, our own worst enemies.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution supporting our troops in the Persian Gulf. But, Mr. Speaker, it should not have taken a formal resolution to articulate our unwavering support for our brave men and women and our military operation. It should have been instinctive as it was for most persons. For one day, we should have been patriots, not partisans. Politics should have stopped at the water's edge. I pray that this resolution undoes the damage done yesterday by the majority leader of the Senate and others who questioned the judgment of the President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and our British allies who outlined the urgency for this action against Iraq. They risk handing Saddam Hussein his only hope, a divided America. Our troops and this operation deserve our unqualified support.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, God help this Nation if today we become a Congress of endless investigation, accomplices to this unAmerican inquisition that would destroy the presidency over an extramarital affair. The global economy is crumbling and we are talking about Monica Lewinsky. Saddam Hussein hides weapons and we are talking about Monica Lewinsky. Genocide wracks Kosovo, and we are talking about Monica Lewinsky. Children crammed into packed classrooms, and we are talking about Monica Lewinsky. Families cannot pay their medical bills, and we are talking about Monica Lewinsky. God help this Nation if we trivialize the Constitution of the United States and reject the conviction of our Founding Fathers that impeachment is about no less than the subversion of the government. The President betrayed his wife; he did not betray the country. God help this Nation if we fail to recognize the difference.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on roll call votes number 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, I was detained due to personal matters. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all five of these roll call votes.

Mr. WEXLER

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

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I would like to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for introducing House Resolution 404 and moving it without delay through the legislative process. I am an original cosponsor of the resolution along with a number of our colleagues here. Mr. Speaker, this is a constructive measure that recognizes the close partnership that we have enjoyed with the Philippines over the past 100 years, and voices support for a continuation of that partnership as we enter the second century of our bilateral relationship. I urge adoption of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Madam Speaker, I rise with great trepidation to oppose a bill or a resolution that purports to restore religious freedom, but this bill does nothing of the sort. If I thought for one moment, one moment, that thousands of American teenagers, because of a 15-second or a 30-second school-sponsored prayer, were going to stop taking drugs or stop being involved in teen relationships or stop using alcohol, I might vote for this bill. If I thought for one moment that a 2-minute prayer exercise at a commencement program is going to take guns out of the hands of kids across America, I might just vote for this. If I even thought that thousands of kids in America would come home after this school-sponsored prayer, come home and simply hug their mother or hug their father and say, ``Mom, I honor you,'' just like the Ten Commandments say, I just might vote for this. But let us really think, outside of the constitutional context, what will really happen to children across America? Let us think about those thin-skinned children that the sponsor spoke of, that courageous young child that will be in a high school football game after this one-size- fits-all prayer is said by the majority will of the students, and since when is our First Amendment determined by majority will? There is no such thing as majority will built into the First Amendment. But that is what we will have. What will that young, courageous child be subjected to, that thin- skinned child? They will be humiliated. They will be scorned. In the worst-case scenario, they will be beaten up and involved in fights. Why? Because they had the courageousness of their convictions to say that one of the most beautiful things about being an American is that no matter how powerful or influential a person or a group is, you cannot tell me how to pray, and you also cannot tell me to sit down or shut up, and do it respectfully, while somebody else tells me how they are going to pray at their school, at their commencement. I love being an American. I cherish being an American, because as an American we have an opportunity to say that we and our family will learn religion the way our family wants it to be learned. We have an opportunity to pray or not pray the way our families have prayed for thousands of years, because of a thing called the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is not determined by the majority, it is not determined by a political whim, it is determined by the greatness of our Founders; that little children will have the opportunity to stand and pray as they choose, without consideration of whether the school said they sponsored it or not sponsored it, and without the consideration of whether they happen to be in the majority or the minority. Do not, do not change the Bill of Rights. Do not change the First Amendment. It is one of the things that makes this country so great, and which most Americans cherish until they will have the opportunity not to, if this amendment were in some way passed today.

Mr. WEXLER

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am outraged at the atrocities at Tiananmen Square 9 years ago. I, too, as the concurrent resolution states, am outraged that children were killed holding the hands of their mothers, outraged that students were crushed by armored personnel carriers. As the resolution says, I am outraged that more than 2,000 Chinese, pro-democracy demonstrators, died that day. But is this resolution about changing policy in China? Unfortunately, it is not. It is just yet another partisan political attempt to embarrass the President. While I would never dare impugn the motives of those speaking in favor of the resolution, where were all the voices, where was the Speaker's voice, when he supported extending China once again Most Favored Nation trading status? Where were all the voices who support extending Most Favored Nation trading status on China? Why were they not talking about the atrocities then? To support China-MFN and to support this concurrent resolution is intellectually incompatible, because to do so is to argue that these brave souls, 2,000 of them that lost their lives, their lives are worthy of changing a ceremony but they are not worthy of changing our economic policy. Those lives are worthy of changing some ceremonial thing that the President will do, where he will walk, but they are not worthy of us, God forbid, losing a buck. I am sure those that bring back the memory of those whose lives were lost in Tiananmen Square are very genuine, very genuine in their memories. But I respectfully suggest to bring up the memories of such brave freedom fighters in the context of something that is not a great debate about policy about China, but is yet just another attempt to rebuke the President on an international stage, is not what we ought to do.