Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I would like to certainly thank and congratulate the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) on this important legislation, as well as that of the gentlemen from Michigan and New York, for the hard work that they have put in on this legislation, as well as that of their staffs. It is very important legislation to reform the bankruptcy laws and to bring it up to date. This amendment that I have, Mr. Chairman, is an amendment really about basic fairness; and that is, this legislation requires trustees to do some additional tasks, some additional work, and to simply provide them an opportunity to be compensated for that work. Specifically, it provides the opportunity for the trustees to be compensated for the additional responsibilities they must perform pursuant to the terms of H.R. 833. Under this bill, trustees must comply with new duties, clarifying which debtors truly need the relief provided by Chapter 7 and whether those debtors should be converted to the Chapter 13 payment plan. However, despite those additional duties, there are no provisions compensating the trustees or even giving them the opportunity to be compensated for the additional functions. This amendment will allow the court or the bankruptcy judge to award a reasonable fee for trustees' actions resulting in a case being converted from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13. In addition, in order to avoid overburdening debtors and reducing the effect this fee would have on the distribution to any creditors, this fee will be paid monthly over the life of the Chapter 13 plan. It is only fair that individuals have the opportunity to be compensated for additional work performed. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would request that this amendment be accepted. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, that is my understanding; that is the intent.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his support on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, late last week this House took up a resolution to continue the administration's policy of bombing Yugoslavia, and by a vote of 213 to 213 the measure failed to endorse that policy. Many of those of us who voted against the policy made a deliberate, considered vote of protest against incessant bombings that have not accomplished much of anything except to kill innocent civilians and destroy the infrastructure of Yugoslavia that in the end the U.S. will likely be asked to spend billions of dollars to rebuild. Forty-one days of intensive bombings have not been successful in removing Milosevic's forces from Kosova, nor has it achieved the stated purpose of the bombing and that is to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Kosovars. Even our own NATO commanders have stated clearly that, except for weakening the air defense system in Yugoslavia, the air strikes have not been successful; and Serb forces continue to commit atrocities; and hundreds of civilians, men, women and children, are being killed by these bombs. Contrary to the wishful thinking of those who supported that resolution, the bombing has not stopped the murders. It has not stopped the violence. Instead, the bombings have exacerbated both. Thus, the question is, how long will the world support a war in which the only victims are civilian men, women and children? Now, Reverend Jessie Jackson returned from Yugoslavia and was successful in obtaining the release of three servicemen, and he brought a letter from Mr. Milosevic to give to President Clinton asking that they meet and talk about this issue. So I would say, Mr. President, the time has come to take a decisive action by stopping the bombs and initiate a committed, comprehensive effort to find a diplomatic solution to what is going on in Yugoslavia.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, this evening the House had an emotionally charged debate about our policy in Kosovo, and contrary to remarks made after the vote, this was not a vote against the troops. This was a vote against the policy of this administration. All of us support the troops and the young men and women who are doing their duty. But I think it is also sad. I understand that people become so emotionally charged that, if they lose, they automatically say this was a partisan vote, and I understand that. But I think it is important to remember that these are very serious issues, and all of us have very strong feelings about them, and we may not all agree with the views of others. But I think, as we debate U.S. involvement in Kosovo, it is important to remember that there has been political and religious turmoil in Kosovo since at least 1389. The Muslim forces of the Ottoman Empire defeated Serb forces on the plains of Kosovo at a place called the Field of Black Birds, and Kosovo has been a sacred place for Muslims and Orthodox Serbs for generations. It is unimaginable really that either group would ever be forced to leave a place they consider their homeland. Now today in the New York Times and other national magazines our military commanders of NATO acknowledged that 5 weeks of intensive bombing has failed to reduce the size of the Serbian forces in Kosovo or in their operations against Albanians. The 4,423 bombing sorties may have rendered Serb air defenses ineffective, but air strikes have not accomplished the stated purpose, to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Kosovars. However innocent civilians in Belgrade, in Kosovo and other locations throughout Serbia and Yugoslavia have been killed by NATO air strikes, and the number of civilian casualties and incidents of misdirected weapons continues to increase. Relentless bombing has become ineffective, and the more it continues, the more innocent civilians are going to be killed and injured in Kosovo and in Serbia, and certainly a military action in which the only victims are civilians will not be long supported by the world community. Now I do not think we should mislead the American people. We already are in a quagmire in Yugoslavia, and there is no easy way out, and it is very complex. But in my view, and the reason that I have voted against the resolution this evening, because we have all sat by and we have watched these relentless air strikes that are totally destroying the infrastructure of Yugoslavia, and in the near future they are going to be coming back to America to help rebuild the country; but the reason I voted against the resolution tonight giving the President authority to continue these air strikes is because I believe that at this point America only has two options. One is an all-out ground war with air support to recapture Kosovo. Now, this option would require over 75,000 ground troops, casualties would be inevitable, and troop presence would be essential to protect Kosovars for a long time once the war was completed. The other option is a diplomatic solution. The goal of NATO should be to return the Kosovars to Kosovo. A military presence will be required to assure their safety, and, of course, Serbian forces must be removed. Now, there have been some indications recently that Mr. Milosevic may accept and be willing and required to accept the presence of foreign troops in Kosovo. In fact, he alluded to that in a recent interview with C-SPAN. So I think that we have a real opportunity here through the Russians, through our NATO allies, through others that have contacts with Mr. Milosevic, to push this opportunity. I hope the President and his advisers will pursue a diplomatic solution as soon as possible to end this situation.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill with my good friend from Ohio, Mr. Sherrod Brown, that would establish a Medicaid definition of ``audiologist'' used for Medicare reimbursement. Congress updated the definition of ``audiologist'' for Medicare reimbursement in 1994, but the same update has not yet occurred for Medicaid. The definition used by Medicare, and which I am proposing to be used for Medicaid purposes, relies primarily on state licensure or registration as the mechanism for identifying audiologists who are qualified to participate in the program. Currently, under Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) regulations, the Medicaid program uses a definition of ``audiologist'' that is nearly thirty years old and relies upon certification from third party organizations. HCFA's Medicaid definition has not kept pace with the significant changes that have occurred in audiology credentialing over the last three decades. The current definition also does not reflect the critical role that state licensure/registration now plays in assuring the quality of audiology services. State licensure/registration statutes currently exist in 49 of the 50 states. Today, there are approximately 28 million Americans with some degree of hearing loss. While this number will grow along with the aging of the Baby Boomers, hearing loss is not exclusively an ``older'' person's problem. A recent article in the Washington Post entitled ``Hearing Loss Touches A Younger Generation'' points out that more and more Americans are suffering from various degrees of hearing loss at a younger age. The article refers to a Journal of the American Medical Association study which found that nearly 15% of children ages 6 to 19 who were tested showed some hearing deficit in either low or high frequencies. Audiologists are specifically trained and licensed to provide a broad range of diagnostic and rehabilitative services to persons with hearing loss and related disorders (e.g. vestibular/balance disorders). The legislation would not expand or change the scope of practice for an audiologist, or alter the important relationship that exists between audiologists and Ear, Nose and Throat physicians. There would be no new benefits or services under this legislation. The bill I am introducing today, while technical in nature, would help establish uniform professional qualifications for audiologists, and a more reliable standard for the more than 28 million people with a hearing loss who may use audiological services.

Mr. WHITFIELD

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on behalf of the small businessmen and women throughout America. Small businesses are responsible for two out of three new jobs created in America today. The underlying legislation, the Mandates Information Act, among its other attributes, provides additional protection for small businesses of America that have borne the brunt of unreasonable and costly Federal mandates for far too long. This legislation would simply give Members the right to raise a point of order to any legislation that would result in costs of more than $100 million for private entities, so it is important that we move forward with this legislation to protect small businesses.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, many of us were quite excited about the President's State of the Union message. He pointed out many things that all of us need to be concerned about in addressing. Our side of the aisle wants very much to save Social Security; so does this side of the aisle. Our side of the aisle wants to strengthen national defense, just as the President does. Our side of the aisle wants to solve Medicare for the long term, just as that side of the aisle does. So I hope as the 106th Congress begins, that we can work together, not for political gain, but to solve the problems facing the American people. I think we have a unique opportunity in this Congress to do exactly that, because our side of the aisle agrees with many of the things that the President said. I look forward to the 106th Congress, to help solve some of these very important issues.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, the tensions in Cyprus continue, despite a new round of American diplomatic efforts and shuttle diplomacy by the United Nations envoy. In my view, our government should focus its attention on a significant part of the problem: Russia. As it has since May, Russia refuses to halt its planned sale of S-300 missiles to the Greek Cypriots, despite resounding protests and criticism from our government and the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United Nations. The world realizes that introducing sophisticated antiaircraft missiles and powerful air surveillance radar into the fragile Cyprus peace would dangerously raise tensions between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and between Greece and Turkey. Even though Russia is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, it seemingly flouts numerous Security Council resolutions and United Nations efforts to defuse the tensions in Cyprus. Indeed, just last Friday the U.N. Security General cited the S- 300 sales in his report to the Security Council recommending renewal of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Cyprus. Even Greece argued for an alternative; place the S-300s on the Greek island of Crete instead of Cyprus. Although not an optimal solution, this alternative at least would have kept the missiles out of the immediate crisis zone. United States Ambassador Kenneth Brill endorsed such an idea, stating in the press that the United States would like to see the missiles deployed anywhere but Cyprus. President Clerides of the Republic of Cyprus rejected the Greek plan. In press statements, he tried to downplay the missile crisis, calling it but one issue of many regarding security. This is quite an understatement, as the missiles could destroy aircraft flying in southern Turkey and the radar equipment reportedly could reach as far as Israel. The introduction of these missiles creates a real risk of wider conflict in the eastern Mediterranean. More disappointing was Russia's reaction to the proposal. The Russian reaction was more defensive, more ominous--and insulting. Russia condemned Mr. Brill's statement as ``unfriendly'', and formally rebuked our diplomats in Moscow for interfering in what Russia labels an exclusively commercial and bilateral deal. The Russian Ambassador to Cyprus responded by saying that Russia is ``nobody's colony.'' The Russians appear to have mistaken diplomacy for interference, and arms sales for acts of sovereignty. International prestige comes from settling crises, not provoking them. With power comes responsibility. The best way for Russia to show it remains important on the world stage is to act responsibly, to work for a solution to the military tension on Cyprus rather than inflame it for financial gain. It is unclear why Russia has taken this course at a time when it hopes for foreign aid to help ease its deep financial crisis. Russia risks damaged ties with the U.S., international condemnation, and the disruption of commerce in the Mediterranean. What is the motive?-- making money from the missile sale; trying to divide NATO members; posturing against Israel and its expanding ties to Turkey; or asserting a bold Russian presence abroad to divert attention from problems at home? Certainly none of these reasons should be worth damaging relations with the international community--or provoking hostilities in Cyprus. We should expect higher standards of conduct from Russia, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. Further, its treatment of United States diplomats, who are working to find solutions to a crisis which everyone except the Greek Cypriots and Russia want to resolve, is unacceptable. The Administration needs to more forcefully persuade the Russian leadership to halt the sale. The President must take a hard line against Russia's treatment of United States diplomatic efforts and personnel, and their efforts to thwart the will of the international community. The U.S. and international community must not take sides in the Cyprus matter, but work for an honest and fair solution for both sides. Stoking the fire with high tech weaponry sales to one party can only lead to further deterioration and a more difficult road for peacemakers in the international community.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, today the United States House of Representatives begins debate on Articles of Impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. This is the first time in over 130 years that the House of Representatives has performed its solemn duty of determining whether a sitting President should be impeached. Article II, Section 4 of our Constitution reads: ``The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' The President has been charged with committing ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Specifically: perjury in testimony before a federal grand jury; perjury in a Federal civil rights suit in which he was the defendant; obstruction of justice; and abuse of power. The President's attorneys argue that he has not committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Legal scholars and English Parliamentary law make it perfectly clear that the phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' includes not only crimes for which an indictment may be brought, but also grave political offenses, corruption, maladministration or neglect of duty involving moral turpitude, and arbitrary and oppressive conduct none of which need constitute a crime. A majority of legal scholars agree that noncriminal misconduct may be impeachable. In fact, every impeachment case presented to the United States Senate before 1973 included articles charging offenses that are not criminally indictable. In addition, to be impeachable, the misconduct must threaten grave harm to the country. President Clinton's alleged behavior constitutes an assault on the truth-finding mechanism of our judicial system. For example, perjury is a crime because our judicial system cannot work unless citizens tell the truth when testifying in judicial proceedings. Articles of Impeachment I and II charge President Clinton with committing perjury. On August 17, 1998, President Clinton testified under oath before a Federal grand jury. He is charged with committing perjury in his answers to eight questions. On January 17, 1998, President Clinton testified under oath in his deposition in the Jones versus Clinton case. He is charged with committing perjury in his answers to 10 questions. The President's legal team and other supporters claim that the first two articles involve nothing more than the President's private sex life. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is clear and convincing evidence that the President lied under oath in the civil case filed against him by Paula Jones because he did not want to lose the case and be required to pay her monetary damages. There is clear and convincing evidence that the President committed perjury when testifying before the Federal grand jury because he did not want to be indicted for perjury in the Jones case. It should be noted that despite all of his efforts, he eventually agreed to pay $700,000 to settle the case. The President's defense to the perjury allegations is limited to only one aspect of his testimony, i.e. whether he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. He basically ignores the perjury claims premised on his denial of being alone with Ms. Lewinsky, his denial of any involvement in obtaining a job for her, his falsely minimizing the number of occasions on which he had encounters with her, and his lies regarding gifts they exchanged. The President and his lawyers assert that he did not commit perjury when he testified that he did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, because he did not believe oral sex meant sexual relations. Perjury is judged by an objective standard, i.e. what would a reasonable person understand the term to mean under the circumstances. A reasonable person would clearly believe that oral sex is a sexual relation. The President's defenders assert that his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky is his private business and he should not be subject to impeachment even if he did commit perjury. If the Congress adopted that position, it would be establishing two different legal systems. One for the President and another for everyone else. Since Bill Clinton has been President, the United States Department of Justice has prosecuted and convicted more than 400 persons for perjury. Here are the facts of a few cases: 1. A Veterans Administration psychiatrist was convicted of perjury for lying in a civil suit about a sexual relationship she had with a patient. The psychiatrist was sentenced to six months in jail and lost her professional license. 2. A Texas judge was convicted of perjury for declaring he had used political contributions to buy flowers for his staff when, in fact, the flowers were for his wife. 3. A Florida postal supervisor is in prison for denying in a civil deposition that she had sexual relations with a subordinate. 4. The former women's basketball coach at the University of South Carolina went to prison after she was convicted of committing perjury relating to a sexual relationship with one of her players. The President should not be immune from laws designed to protect the integrity of our judicial system. For these reasons, I will vote in favor of Articles I and II. Article III charges the President with Obstruction of Justice. Specifically: 1. He is charged with encouraging Monica Lewinsky to file a sworn affidavit in the Jones case that he knew would be false. 2. He encouraged Monica Lewinsky to lie under oath if called personally to testify in the Jones versus Clinton case. 3. He told lies to White House aides who he knew would likely be called as witnesses before the Federal grand jury investigating his misconduct. the aides repeated the assertions to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false information. 4. He engaged in a plan to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a federal civil rights action brought against him. 5. He corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal Judge in an affidavit in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge. 6. He related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness. The term obstruction of justice usually refers to a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1503 which contains a catchall clause making it unlawful to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice. It may also refer to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512, which proscribes intimidating, threatening or corruptly persuading through deceptive conduct, a person in connection with an official proceeding. During his deposition on January 17, 1998, in the Jones case, President Clinton frequently referred to his secretary, Betty Currie, as someone who could verify his testimony as it related particularly to Monica Lewinsky. At the deposition, Judge Wright imposed a protective order that directed the parties, including President Clinton, to refrain from discussing their testimony with anyone. The next morning, a Sunday, President Clinton met with Betty Currie at the White House because it was foreseeable that she might be called as a witness in the Jones case. He told her about his testimony at the deposition and reviewed it in detail. She subsequently testified to the Federal grand jury that the President wanted her to agree with his testimony if she was called to testify. The Betty Currie episode is one of the key points in this article. However, there are additional facts and evidence that provide convincing proof that the President did obstruct justice. I will vote in favor of Article III. Article IV charges President Clinton with abuse of power. This article relates to the President's evasive answers to a list of 81 questions submitted to the Judiciary Committee. From my analysis of this charge, the primary allegation is based on the President's use of executive privilege and his evasive answers to 81 questions submitted to him by the Judiciary Committee. Although I believe from the evidence that the President was less than forthcoming in his answers and may have been aggressive in his assertion of executive privilege, I do not believe he abused his power. I will vote against Article IV.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, while I am not a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I came to this debate today with the great hope that the advocates for the President would spend considerable time addressing specifically the articles of impeachment. Instead I have heard a lot about the Iraqi war. I have heard about Ken Starr. I have heard about Medicare, Social Security, but I have not heard any evidence refuting the articles of impeachment. Now we are not here today because of the political philosophy of any political party or an obsession to impeach the President. We are not here today because of the private sexual activities of anyone. We are here today because the President is charged with breaking criminal laws which for constitutional purposes are high crimes and misdemeanors. One of those crimes is perjury. And by committing perjury, the President harmed the integrity of our judicial branch of government, which is a central component of the government. Since 1993, when President Clinton took office, the U.S. Department of Justice has prosecuted and convicted over 400 people for perjury. Many of those people are in prison today or under house arrest. We could go through a lot of individual cases. We have a psychiatrist at the Veterans Administration who was convicted of perjury for lying in a civil suit. She is under a jail sentence right today, and we could go on and on. But our Nation has one legal standard that applies to all of its citizens. We do not have one legal system for the President and a more harsh legal system for everyone else. High office does not allow anyone to be above or beyond the law. For those reasons, I will vote for three of the four articles of impeachment.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago this House passed a modest tax reduction for hard working middle class Americans. President Clinton and the Democratic leadership vigorously opposed the tax reduction. They said they opposed it because they incorrectly, I might say, claimed it would take money from Social Security. However, in the last minute back room negotiations on the omnibus appropriation bill, the President and Democratic leadership are not expressing any concern for Social Security. Instead they want to spend billions more of taxpayer dollars for foreign aid, for their favorite environmental programs and for the education bureaucracy in Washington while we want to send it to local school boards. The President does not want to give the American taxpayers a small tax reduction. Instead he wants to keep the tax dollars in the government and let them spend money on programs he wants. Once again the President and Democrat leadership say one thing in public but they demand something entirely different in private negotiations.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a friend and distinguished former Kentuckian, Mr. Richard K. Boyd, Jr., who is retiring this month after 32 years of dedicated service with Westvaco Corporation. As Manager of Government Relations and various executive capacities during his career at Westvaco, Mr. Boyd diligently exercised his professional stake in civic affairs. As a private citizen of Kentucky for 24 years, he faithfully demonstrated his deep sense of personal responsibility for civic involvement. For much of his career, Dick Boyd lived and worked in Wickliffe, Kentucky, where he and his wife Malinda raised their three daughters-- Anne, Gretchen and Rebecca. His arrival in Wickliffe pre-dates the Westvaco Fine Papers mill, a major employer and contributor to the economic development of western Kentucky. The growth of the mill and the company's good relationship with the community and the Commonwealth of Kentucky are a part of the legacy of Dick Boyd's career and his life in our state. In 1988, Dick served in Kentucky State Government as Deputy Secretary of the Cabinet for Economic Development, His dedication to family, friends and neighbors is worthy of recognition. Dick Boyd has performed his duties representing Westvaco and its operations in the First Congressional District of Kentucky with honest and integrity. He is a valued friend and a good citizen whose national corporate responsibilities have never diminished his concern for and dedication to the economic and civic progress of the people of western Kentucky. On their behalf, I take this opportunity to congratulate Richard K. Boyd, Jr. on his successful and distinguished career and extend best wishes for his retirement.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for their support of H.R. 3864, designating the Tim Lee Carter Post Office Building in Tompkinsville, Kentucky. My bill passed the House on a voice vote on October 5, 1998. Former Congressman Tim Lee Carter was born in Tompkinsville, Kentucky, on September 2, 1910. He attended public schools and graduated from Western Kentucky State College in 1934 and from the University of Tennessee in 1937. He volunteered for military service during the Second World War and served forty-two months as a combat medic and a captain in the 38th Infantry Division. Following the war, Carter practiced medicine in Tompkinsville until 1964. Tim Lee Carter served with distinction in the House of Representatives for 16 years representing the old 5th District of Kentucky. While in Congress, Carter was a tireless advocate for improvements to the schools, water systems, libraries, airports, roads, and recreation areas of his District. His proudest achievement was the passage of a law to provide for preventive medical care for poor children. In 1966, he gained national attention as the first Republican Congressman to seek a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, but he never wavered in his support for those soldiers and voted against cutting off funding for the troops. Upon retirement, Tim Lee Carter returned to his farm on the Cumberland River with his wife Kathleen Bradshaw Carter and continued to practice medicine until his death in 1987 at the age of 76. Tim Lee Carter is an outstanding example of the selfless public servant and I hope that the Senate moves expeditiously to pass this legislation before the end of the 105th Congress.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Congress and the American people disturbing new details of national policy decisions made in the aftermath of the bombing of the U.S. embassies in East Africa last month. This emerging information focuses on the Clinton administration's decision to retaliate against terrorists it suspected of carrying out the embassy attacks and in particular the decision to attack a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan suspected of producing chemical weapons for the use of the terrorists led by Mr. bin Laden. This new insight is contained in an article in the September 21, 1998 issue of the New York Times by reporters Tim Weiner and James Risen. It raises serious questions regarding the accuracy of intelligence information on which the decision was made and the credibility of statements made by senior officials in the Clinton administration as they sought to justify their decisions after the bombing in which it is estimated 20 to 50 people were killed. The article reconstructs how a group of 6 senior administration officials and the President picked the bombing targets. It is based on interviews with participants and others at high levels of the national security apparatus and recounts how an act of war was approved on the basis of fragmented and disputed intelligence. I quote from the article: Within days of the attack, some of the administration's explanations for destroying the factory in the Sudan proved inaccurate. Many people inside and outside the American government began to ask whether the questionable intelligence had prompted the United States to blow up this factory under false information. I note that today former President Jimmy Carter asked for a congressional investigation about this matter. Quoting further, Senior officials now say their case for attacking the factory relied on inference, as well as evidence that it produced chemical weapons for Mr. bin Laden's use. However, in analyzing more closely the efforts of those officials to justify their actions, it should be noted that since United States spies were withdrawn from the Sudan more than 2 years ago reliable information about the plant was scarce. In fact, in January 1996, weeks after American diplomats and spies were pulled out of the Sudan, the CIA withdrew as fabrications over 100 reports furnished to it by an outside source regarding terrorist threats against U.S. personnel in the Sudan. A month after the attack, the same senior national security advisors, who had described the pharmaceutical plant as a secret chemical weapons factory, financed by bin Laden, are now conceding that they had no evidence to substantiate that claim or the President's decision to order the strike. It is now clear that the decision to bomb the factory was made amidst a three-year history of confusion in the intelligence community and conflicting foreign policy views within the administration regarding the Sudan. It is with sadness that we must acknowledge the inevitable probability that these revelations will feed public suspicion that the heightened domestic turmoil enveloping the White House may cause other acts of misjudgment. This is regrettable but it is a graphic illustration of the debilitating consequences of the commander in chief's unfortunate personal behavior. Of more concern are the important national security questions that are raised by the decision-making process that let the President target a factory in the Sudan that may not have been manufacturing chemical weapons. More hard information, however, needs to be developed and I urge the appropriate committees in the Congress to investigate this matter in more detail.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, we are on the verge of yet another crisis in Cyprus. The Greek Cypriots propose to purchase new S-300 missiles from Russia, and by all accounts, Russia intends to proceed with delivery of the missiles this fall. The installation of these sophisticated new antiaircraft missiles and accompanying powerful air surveillance radars needlessly escalates the level of military confrontation in Cyprus, and pushes the two sides further away from a more sensible path of mutual arms reductions. It also raises the disastrous prospect of conflict between two of our NATO allies, Turkey and Greece. Indeed, the placement of these missiles in Cyprus seems intended for no other reason than to provoke conflict. The Cyprus problem has been with us for a long time. United Nations peacekeeping forces have been there for a quarter of this century. Some of our European allies have invested, and continue to invest, considerable effort in finding a long-term solution there. The United States, of course, is also actively engaged in diplomatic efforts in Cyprus. The problem is daunting and filled with frustrations. For example, I was disturbed to read last week that the Foreign Minister of Greece had referred to the President's efforts in Cyprus as ``utter lies''. These kinds of remarks from senior government officials are not helpful. I wish the Greek Cypriots would reconsider their decision to deploy these dangerous new missiles, but I fear that they will not. Unfortunately, restraint has not been a common feature of Cyprus' history. In light of this, I am very troubled that Russia will allow this sale to go forward. Russia is a member of the United Nations Security Council, and I simply cannot understand why President Yeltsin would permit these missiles to be sent into this explosive environment--particularly after repeated Security Council resolutions expressing concern about the introduction of sophisticated weaponry in Cyprus, and admonitions to all parties to avoid further expansion of military forces and armaments. Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues and I have sent a letter today to the President urging him to speak directly to President Yeltsin about this crisis, and to prevail upon him to cancel the S-300 missile transfer. At a time when Russia is looking to the United States and other members of the international community for help with its financial crisis, I think that Russia should understand that international cooperation is not a one-way street and not limited to the subject of finance. Like all of us, Russia has a responsibility to promote solutions, not new crises. I hope that President Yeltsin will see that this missile sale threatens to damage Russia's goodwill in the United States, and this makes it more difficult for us to cooperate on other issues. A few weeks ago, some of my colleagues here spoke of the Cyprus problem, but the common message was not solution-oriented. Instead, we heard that one side in Cyprus was to blame for all its problems, and the other side was innocent. I want to suggest to my colleagues that taking sides in this old and complex problem is not constructive, and will not enhance the ability of the United States to be an effective catalyst for solutions. I also want to point out that the history is not so clear as some have suggested. Even before this most recent crisis was precipitated by a weapons purchase from Russia, the last major crisis in 1974 began for reasons that some of us have forgotten. The American Secretary of State at the time, Henry Kissinger, succinctly summarized the events in his book, ``Years of Upheaval'': After World War II, the old enemies Greece and Turkey were allies in NATO with a common stake in the security of the eastern Mediterranean. But their atavistic bitterness found a focus in the island of Cyprus, forty-four miles from mainland Turkey, with a population 80 percent Greek and about 20 percent Turk--a lethal cocktail. As in many other nations of mixed nationalities, a tenuous civil peace had been possible while the island was under foreign rule. But when the British granted independence to the island in 1960, with Britain, Greece, and Turkey as guarantors of its internal arrangements, the subtle Greek Orthodox Archbishop Makarios III, leader of the Greek Cypriot community and of the campaign against British rule, found himself obliged to concede a degree of self-government to the Turkish minority, offensive to all his notions of government or nationality. He did not have his heart in it, and with independence he systematically reneged on what he promised, seeking to create in effect a unitary state in which the Turkish minority would always be outvoted. The history of independent Cyprus was thus plagued by communal strife, and in 1967 Turkey's threat to intervene militarily was aborted only at the last moment by a strong warning from President Johnson. It had become since an article of faith in Turkish politics that this submission to American preferences had been unwise and would never be repeated. I had always taken it for granted that the next communal crisis in Cyprus would provoke Turkish intervention. Makarios nevertheless continued to play with fire. In 1972 he introduced Czech arms on the island for the apparent purpose of creating a private paramilitary unit to counterbalance those set up by the constitution. In 1974 he again took on the Greek-dominated National Guard in an effort to bring them under his control. Greece was then governed by a military junta, violently anti-Communist, deeply suspicious of Makarios's flirtation with radical Third World countries, which it took to be a sign of his pro-Communist sympathies. It therefore encouraged plans to overthrow him and install in Cyprus a regime more in sympathy with Greece, oblivious to the fact than an overthrow of the constitutional arrangement on Cyprus would free Turkey of previous restraints. . . . On July 15--six days after my return from the Soviet Union and Europe--Makarios was overthrown in a coup d'etat just as he returned from a weekend in the mountains; he was nearly assassinated. He was replaced by an unsavory adventurer, Nikos Sampson, known as a strong supporter of union with Greece. A crisis was now inevitable. There was nothing we needed less than a crisis--especially one that would involve two NATO allies. Whomever we supported and whatever the outcome, the eastern flank of the Mediterranean would be in jeopardy. . . . During the week of July 15 I therefore dispatched Joe Sisco to London, Ankara, and Athens. Britain, as one of the guarantor powers, was seeking to mediate between the parties. Sisco's mission was to help Britain start a negotiating process that might delay a Turkish invasion and enable the structure under Sampson in Cyprus to fall of its own weight. But Turkey was not interested in a negotiated solution; it was determined to settle old scores. On July 19 it invaded Cyprus, meeting unexpectedly strong resistance. . . . During the night of July 21-22, we forced a cease-fire by threatening Turkey that we would move nuclear weapons from forward positions--especially where they might be involved in a war with Greece. It stopped Turkish military operations while Turkey was occupying only a small enclave on the island; this created conditions for new negotiations slated to start two days hence, with the Turkish minority obviously in an improved bargaining position and with some hope of achieving more equitable internal arrangements. On July 22, the junta in Athens was overthrown and replaced by a democratic government under the distinguished conservative leader Constantine Karamanlis. Within days, the mood in America changed. The very groups that had castigated us for our reluctance to assault Greece now wanted us to turn against Turkey over a crisis started by Greece, to gear our policies to the domestic structures of the government in Athens and Ankara regardless of the origins or merits of the dispute on Cyprus, to take a one-sided position regardless of our interest in easing the conflict between two strategic allies in the eastern Mediterranean. . . . For two weeks we maintained our tightrope act, but during the weekend following Nixon's resignation the crisis erupted again, culminating in a second Turkish invasion of the island. While Ford struggled to restore executive authority over the next months, a freewheeling Congress destroyed the equilibrium between the parties we had precariously maintained; it legislated a heavy-handed arms embargo against Turkey that destroyed all possibility of American mediation--at a cost from which we have not recovered to this day. . . . What I learn from this is that we do a disservice to ourselves and to the cause of peace in Cyprus by being too quick to take sides in the matter. The situation requires a steady hand and an honest broker, and we do not contribute either if the Congress of the United States is waving the flag of one of the parties to the dispute. I hope the President can persuade our friends in Russia to adopt this same approach, and to abandon this very dangerous new transfer of weapons to Cyprus.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the discussion that we are having right now goes to the very crux of this entire issue of campaign finance reform. Those who have been advocating reform talk about special interest money. One thing is pretty clear, special interest money is the money of any group you do not agree with. Second of all, too much money, no one has been able to define what is too much money. Third of all, sham ads. What is a sham ad? It is an ad that you do not like. Then fourth of all, disclosure. Now, I find it ironic that I am up here this evening speaking in favor of the majority whip's amendment to allow groups to take out ads in the newspaper or radio or whatever to express their concern about issues before the Congress; and you all want to stop that, in essence. Yet a group called Public Campaign ran ads in every newspaper in my district 2 days ago saying that Ed Whitfield does not think politicians are hooked on special interest money so he wants to triple the dose. Now, I did not like this. It made me feel bad to read this, every newspaper in my district, but I think this group has a constitutional right to run this ad if they want to run it. But in your definition of express advocacy, you expand it so far that you are going to eliminate and curtail the rights of groups like Public Campaign to talk about these issues. In fact, the third way you expand express advocacy, it says, express advocacy is expressing unmistakable and unambiguous support for or opposition to one or more clearly identified candidates when taken as a whole and with limited reference to external events such as proximity to an election. This ad meets that definition. And under the Shays-Meehan, this ad would be illegal. So here I am, up here defending the right of this third party, independent group to run these ads, and all that the majority whip's amendment does is to be sure that they have a right to do that. I might further say that the third way you expand the definition of express advocacy, the Supreme Court already, in a case FEC versus Maine Right to Life, has declared that specific language, not approximate language, but specific language unconstitutional.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would just say to the gentleman that I think he has confirmed my concern and his third method of expanding express advocacy can be by newspaper, radio, television or whatever. Reasonable minds can disagree about what is unmistakable and what is unambiguous, and that is the reason that the court has adopted a bright line test. Your expansion of express advocacy is going to end up right back in the courts.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, there is one thing that I did want to clarify. Obviously if you have an ad that is running and under the new definition of express advocacy of Shays-Meehan that ad is included and, as I said, I think it is so broad and so ambiguous and subject to so many interpretations, the Supreme Court has already declared part of this language unconstitutional. But obviously you can run those ads. The gentleman was correct. You can run the ads, but the group would have to form a PAC, the group would have to have an attorney, the group would have to file all those reports with the FEC and that is precisely the type of chilling effect that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said you cannot require.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we conclude the debate on this important legislation, I have been very pleased with the debate that has been a long and lengthy debate and I think we have covered about every aspect of campaign finance that one can cover. The advocates for campaign finance have talked a lot about special interests. They have talked a lot about sham ads. They have talked a lot about too much money. They have talked about inadequate disclosure. We have said many times, I guess, that special interest depends on who supports you and who does not; and sham ads if you do not like it, maybe it is a sham ad. So those are valid reasons that people have for supporting this legislation. I have told some people, and I firmly believe this, that one of the unintended consequences of this act is to protect incumbents. The amendment that I am offering is to try to help alleviate the burden that is placed on people running for Congress the first time. I think all of us know that about 80 percent of the political action committee money goes to incumbents. One thing about the Shays-Meehan bill, it does not do anything about the way candidates raise their money or spend their money. It applies only to the way other groups out in the country spend their money and participate in the political system. This is a very simple amendment in that it increases the amount that an individual can give a candidate from $1,000 to $3,000. Now, this contribution limit was set in 1974. When you consider inflation, it is worth in today's dollars $325 instead of the $1,000 that was in 1974. But I would ask that Members give some serious thought to this, because, as I said, 80 percent of political action committee money goes to incumbents. All of us know the first time that we ran, it is very difficult to raise the money. If we can increase the amount that an individual can contribute from $1,000 to $3,000, I think it will go a long way in making this a more equitable system, particularly for those very few candidates, one of which may be on the floor this evening, who do not accept political action committee money. This kind of evens the playing field, and that is really my purpose in introducing this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to quote Justice Thurgood Marshall whom I do not think anyone could say is a very conservative judge, but in Buckley v. Valeo he said, ``One of the points on which all Members of the Court agree is that money is essential to effective communication in a political campaign.'' And we do live in a world where it costs a lot of money to buy TV ads, to buy newspaper ads, to buy radio ads, and I guess I am not surprised that incumbents would not support this because it would be easier for opponents to raise money if they raised the amount that an individual can give. And we talked about the groups that supported Shays-Meehan, and one of those groups is Public Campaign that has been running newspaper ads in my district against me for the last day or two and also in the Washington Post; and, as I said earlier, I did not particularly like it, but I think they have a right to do that. That is an issue ad in my view. I think they have a right to do that, but they really pounded me because they said, ``Ed Whitfield is trying to triple the amount of money that an individual can give,'' and yet I find it quite ironic that one of their largest contributors is a guy named Mr. Solls, who is one of the wealthiest men in the world. He contributes heavily to them. So I guess that sometimes it just depends upon who gives the money, but I think that we are doing a great disservice to our political system if we prevent individuals from giving up to $3,000 to candidates that they have confidence in, that they believe in and they want to support, particularly when they know that challengers are not going to receive political action committee money. So I would urge the adoption of this amendment.

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