Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I may. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I am not going to go into detail. This was the language that would have allowed people to telework; it would have taken a lot of traffic off of streets. It also would have encouraged car-pooling and done a lot of other things. But in light of the objection that has been made, we will not appeal the point of order.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the passing of Cardinal Ignatius Kung, who died on March 12 at the age of 98. Cardinal Kung was the Roman Catholic bishop of Shanghai, China, and he was proclaimed a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II on June 28, 1991. Cardinal Kung was the first native born Chinese Bishop of Shanghai. Cardinal Kung was a genuine man of faith, possessing deep conviction and a vital moral character--attributes that enabled him to endure some 30 years in prison. He was a man who inspired millions of faithful in China and throughout the world. After his arrest by the Chinese Communist Government in 1955, Cardinal Kung was forced onto a stage before thousands of people and was pushed forward to a microphone to publicly confess for his supposed ``crimes''. Dressed only in pajamas and with his arms tied behind his back, the Cardinal defied Beijing saying instead, ``Long live Christ the King; Long live the Pope!'' The Chinese police quickly dragged him away and Cardinal Kung was not heard of until he was brought to trial in 1960. Throughout his leadership, Cardinal Kung refused to compromise or cooperate with the Communist Chinese Government. The night before his public trial, the Cardinal rebuffed the chief prosecutor's attempts to have him lead the government-backed Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association. The next day, Cardinal Kung was sentenced to life in prison. The Cardinal spent the next 30 years behind bars, spending much of that time in isolation. He was not permitted to receive visitors, including his relatives, or receive letters or money to buy essential items--rights which other prisoners usually received. After intense international pressure, in 1985 the Chinese Government released Cardinal Kung to serve another term of 10 years under house arrest. After 2\1/2\ years under house arrest, he was officially released. He spent most of the rest of his life in the United States receiving medical treatment and in 1998, the Chinese Government confiscated the passport of this elderly man. Cardinal Kung will be remembered as a hero to millions of faithful Chinese for his determination against the Chinese Government that refused to allow him and millions to freely worship. Cardinal Kung stands out as one of the great religious figures in the 20th century--a standard-bearer and a vigilant witness for those who have been persecuted during the reign of the communists in China.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of attending the annual meeting and recognition dinner of the United Way of Northern Shenandoah Valley, at which Bruce Downing of Winchester, Virginia, received the 1999 Volunteer of the Year Award. I would like to share with our colleagues the outstanding community service work of Mr. Downing, who was cited in one award nominating letter as ``a giant among men in this community. His calm, reassuring manner, his generosity, and his compassion for others are without measure. Bruce Downing has made the community a better place to live. He is a hero.'' Mr. Downing, 52, began his community service in the mid-1960's when his college fraternity helped special needs children at a local school. He later became a volunteer with Big Brothers/Big Sisters and other organizations including Grafton School, Access Independence, Help with Housing, ABBA Pregnancy Care Center, and numerous United Way boards and others. He and his wife, Donna, also donated one of their own family vans with a special wheelchair life to a family in need. Mr. Speaker, Bruce Downing represents the thousands upon thousands of giving and caring Americans who reach out as volunteers to help their fellow citizens. They do so not for any honors or recognition that may come their way; rather they do it with generous hearts because they want to make a difference in people's lives. We salute Bruce Downing and all the other volunteers of the United Way and the many other volunteer organizations who lend a helping hand every day of the year to serve their communities. They are indeed heroes.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, before I speak in opposition to this bill, let me congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their effective work. This bill creates a new entitlement, and what the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has said and others about trust funds are true. But what the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) said with regard to cancer research and others is also true. It also hurts the FAA operations fund. So when you are flying into that airport, it will suffer. It helps concrete. This is a pro-concrete bill. It also hurts the Coast Guard. I think if my colleagues like the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard will suffer more; and frankly, I think the Coast Guard and Admiral Loy ought to get out of the Department of Transportation and get into some other department, like the Department of Defense. They will suffer no matter what anyone says. It undermines the budget process. It undermines the budget process. Lastly, why do we not get a committee to come and say, we want to increase funding for cancer? Well, let us find a cure for cancer or reduce cancer deaths by 50 percent by the year 2010. Let us put the money into reducing or finding a prevention for Alzheimer's. Let us put the money in for diabetes research. This is a bad bill. It undermines the budget process; it distorts the priority of where this Congress ought to be. To the poor and the hungry and those like that, it says forget it, you do not have the lobbyists and you are not here. Lastly, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) said, it creates what I call the aluminum policy for National Airport. Do not say it is not a safety issue to add slots there at National Airport. Do not forget the airplane crash that took place there when people died when it hit the 14th Street Bridge. My colleagues are breaking their promise. Many of you who were here who voted for that policy are now breaking your promise. They want to stuff in as many airplanes as they possibly can from wherever they can. This is just the beginning. So I would say to my colleagues who are listening, unless you are already committed, vote no on this bill. It hurts the poor, it hurts the Coast Guard, it goes for concrete. Let us put into cancer research, let us put it in diabetes research, let us put it in Alzheimer's research. By doing this we will undermine the budget process, and it will make it harder for us to do what the American people want us to do. Vote no on the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. Mr. Speaker, history tells us that in good budgetary times it is very difficult for the budget process to keep a tight rein over federal spending. We see happening now a repeat of what happened during the late 1800's. During that time, various legislative committees convinced the Congress that the stingy ways of the Appropriations Committee had to be changed, that we needed to spend a lot more to make the country grow. Well, Mr. Speaker, we did spend a lot more when we let the authorizing committees make those decisions, and we're doing it all over again. This bill spends an extra $12 billion over the next three years, compared to the past three. And some programs will get astronomical raises. For example, the airport grants program will get $3.2 billion next year--a 64 percent increase in one year. Air traffic control modernization will get almost 30 percent more next year. Now, I agree there are needs out there, and that air traffic continues to rise. But the increases in this bill are uncalled for. FAA doesn't even know how to spend all of this money, if you look at their existing long-range plan. So we're really throwing money at them in this bill. The bill also puts a priority on airport construction and equipment renovation, to the detriment of FAA's day-to-day operations, which I think is a dangerous shift in Congressional priorities. In some past years, the Appropriations Committees have reduced FAA's capital programs in order to fully fund their day-to-day operations, and that has made some contractors and businesses unhappy. That is because we put a priority on the smooth, safe functioning of the agency. By contrast, this bill raises and locks in funding for the capital programs, and leaves FAA's operations out in the cold, begging for whatever remaining funds we can find. Members should not be surprised if we come up short, because we first have to fund the significantly increased guaranteed programs. We can't protect the operating budget anymore, because this bill takes that flexibility out of the appropriations process. In fact, this bill even takes that flexibility out of the hands of the Congressional leadership, by amending the Rules of the House to tie their hands as well. The creation of new ``guaranteed'' programs continues a troubling trend. A few years ago we created new mandatory programs in the agriculture appropriations bill. Then in 1998 we walled off highway and transit spending. And now we're adding to that list most of our aviation programs. Of course, in each case we increase the funding, because that's the reason for doing it in the first place. Each time we do this we make a small constituency happy, but we make our job here infinitely more difficult, because we make the real discretionary budget smaller and smaller. Then, when we want to begin new initiatives, like putting more police on the street, increasing education grants, or fighting a more intense war on drugs, we have to dip into the surplus to do it because we have effectively shrunk or walled off so much of the discretionary budget that we have no choice. And this agreement is especially bad for the Washington metropolitan area. It breaks a commitment made to the area many years ago when we transferred the operation of Dulles and Reagan National airports from the federal government to a local authority. I worked with then Transportation Secretary Dole and others to come up with a finely tuned package that put decision-making for these two airports in the local community and provided the authority with bond financing to make airport improvements. That package also established the perimeter rule and a limit on slots, or the number of daily takeoff and landing operations, at Reagan National. That rule essentially allowed the orderly development of Dulles and Reagan National airports, by limiting the length of flights which could be taken from Reagan National. That led to the enormously successful development of Dulles International Airport in my district-- a development which might not have occurred without the perimeter rule in place. By adding 24 daily slots at Reagan National and allowing some of those to fly beyond the perimeter, this conference report is starting down a slippery slope which could undermine the delicate balance between these two airports and choke off the economic expansion at Dulles and the surrounding community. This is a very bad decision, and much like our changes to the Wright amendment at Dallas Love Field a couple of years ago, sends the message to local communities that they shouldn't depend on the federal government keeping its word. The commitment to the local community in providing a local authority to operate these airports and in setting slot and perimeter rules was also made because of safety and noise concerns to prevent Reagan National from having a so-called ``aluminum skies'' policy with unlimited flight operations. This conference report breaks faith with the local community and I cannot support it. This is a very bad bill, for the Congress as an institution, for FAA employees--who are now relegated to the margins of the budget process-- and for other federal programs which must pay for the additional programs in the bill. It is a good bill for the pork barrel, and a bad bill for sound federal policy.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege to speak in support of the legislation I introduced to designate the post office located at 3118 Washington Boulevard in Arlington, Virginia, as the ``Joseph L. Fisher Post Office.'' I want to again thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman McHugh) of the Postal Service subcommittee and all the members of the Committee on Government Reform for their efforts to move this legislation to the House floor today. Born in Rhode Island on January 11, 1914, the same year as my dad was born, the late Congressman Joseph L. Fisher was first elected as representative of the 10th District in 1974 as a Democrat and began his service in the 94th Congress. He served for three terms and was the second Member of Congress to represent Virginia's 10th Congressional District. As the current representative of the 10th District, I am honored to offer this legislation to highlight the public service career of Joe Fisher, which spanned over 50 years. Economist, educator, author, and congressman, Joe Fisher earned his undergraduate degree at Bowdoin College and went on to graduate studies at the London School of Economics, Harvard University, and The George Washington University. In 1942, he married the former Margaret, now Peggy, Saunders Winslow. He served as Senior Economic Advisor on the Council of Economic Advisors during the Truman Administration. During his 6 years in Congress, he was a member of the powerful House Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the Budget and earned a reputation for his diligent work on taxation, energy, and budget policy. He also served as the chairman of seven task forces all charged with important national policy issues. He held the position of economist at the U.S. Department of State before serving his country in World War II in the Pacific theater from 1943 to 1946. He was also deeply involved in community activities. He was elected to the Arlington County Board in 1963 and served as its chairman. Working closely with his community, he became an advocate for regional air and water pollution and transit improvement projects. He also served as chairman of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and president and chairman of the Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments. After his service in Congress, he continued his public service career during Virginia Governor Charles Robb's administration as secretary of human resources for the Commonwealth of Virginia. He was also a professor of political economy at George Mason University and chairman of the National Academy of Public Administration. He also served as head of the Unitarian Universalist Association, the church's international administrative body. As an author, he wrote several books, including World Prospects for Natural Resources in 1964 and Resources in America's Future in 1963. The Joseph L. Fisher papers are featured in a collection at George Mason University. Former Virginia Governor L. Douglas Wilder once stated, ``Joe proved how well one can serve the people. He did it every day, pushing for the kinds of things that would truly improve the quality of life for all of his constituents.'' Congressman Fisher dedicated his life to public service and was a committed advocate of the causes in which he believed. It is fitting to recognize his commitment to public service by renaming the post office located at 3118 Washington Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia, in tribute to him. Congressman Fisher passed away in Arlington, Virginia, on February 19, 1992, and is survived by his wife Peggy, 7 children, 16 grandchildren, and 2 great grandsons. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to honor the late Congressman Joseph L. Fisher for his dedicated public service. I would say that Senator Warner has introduced identical legislation in the Senate, and we are hopeful for a quick passage. I want to again really thank the chairman for moving these so very, very fast.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege, as the representative of the 10th Congressional District of Virginia, to speak today in very strong support of legislation I introduced which would designate the postal facility located at 8409 Lee Highway in Merrifield, Virginia, as the Joel T. Broyhill Postal Building. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) of the Subcommittee on Postal Service and the entire Committee on Government Reform for moving this legislation very, very fast. The Honorable Joel T. Broyhill was elected to Congress in 1952 and began his career in the service in the House as a Republican Member in 1953 in the 83rd Congress. I can still remember looking down and seeing Congressman Broyhill as he served here on the floor for so many years. Born in Hopewell, Virginia, on November 4, 1919, Joel Broyhill served 22 years as a representative of the 10th Congressional District. He was the first Member of Congress to represent the newly created 10th. He began his congressional career and service as a member, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) said, of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and the District of Columbia, and later became a member of the powerful House Committee on Ways and Means. Constituent services, assisting people he represented, was the cornerstone of Joel Broyhill's service in Congress. According to the Almanac of American Politics in 1972, and I quote, they said, ``There were few offices that took care of constituents' needs and complaints with more efficiency.'' Congressman Broyhill estimated that he aided more than 100,000 10th Congressional District residents in his 20-plus year service in office. The almanac also describes Congressman Broyhill as a Member of Congress and says that he ``should be credited with voting his conscience.'' Congressman Broyhill is a decorated veteran and for 4 years served bravely, along with thousands of other young American soldiers, in World War II as a captain in the 106th Infantry Division. At the age of 25, Captain Broyhill fought in one of the most decisive and costly conflicts in World War II, the famous, the infamous, the Battle of the Bulge. He was taken prisoner and held in a German POW camp until he heroically escaped and was able to rejoin advancing allied forces. Congressman Broyhill has dedicated most of his life to serving his country in both war and peace, in public and in a military capacity. His commitment and his devotion to public service is deserving of recognition, and it is appropriate that the postal building at 3409 Lee Highway in Merrifield, Virginia, be renamed in his honor. He also loved this body and loved this House, and I appreciate the fact that the House has honored him with this. Congressman Broyhill is the father of three daughters, one step- daughter and resides today in Arlington, Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the entire Virginia congressional delegation has sponsored this legislation today, and we join in asking our colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 3699 to honor former Congressman Joel T. Broyhill through the naming of the Joel T. Broyhill Postal Building in Merrifield, Virginia. I would also like to announce that Senator Warner has introduced identical legislation in the Senate where we hope it goes for a quick passage.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in his comments about giving China MFN, the President said, ``I believe the choice between economic rights and human rights, between economic security and national security is a false one.'' If that is the case, Mr. President, why is the Chinese Government continuing to persecute the Catholic Church? Why is the Chinese Government persecuting the Protestant Church? Why is the Clinton administration going against its own human rights report and not speaking out for those who are being plundered and killed in Tibet? Why is the Chinese government persecuting the Muslims in China? Why, if one reads today's Washington Times, are we allowing the Chinese Government to increase its spying activities in the United States? Mr. President, if you really believe that there is no connection, then you have not read your own human rights report.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to provide a $500 tax credit for telework. The purpose of my legislation is to provide an incentive to encourage more employers to consider telework for their employees. Telework should be a regular part of the 21st century workplace. The best part of telework is that it improves the quality of life for all. Nearly 20 million Americans telework today, and according to experts, 40 percent of American jobs are compatible with telework. Telework reduces traffic congestion and air pollution. It reduces gas consumption and our dependency on foreign oil. Telework provides people with disabilities greater job opportunities. Telework helps fill our nation's labor market shortage. It is also a good way for retirees to pick up part-time work. Companies save significantly when they have a strong telecommuting program. At one national telecommunications company, nearly 25 percent of its employees work from home at least 1 day per week. The company found positive results in the way of fewer days of sick leave, better worker retention, and higher productivity. According to a George Mason University (Fairfax, VA) study, for every 1 percent of the Washington metro region workforce that telecommutes, there is a 3-percent reduction in traffic delays. George Mason University has recently completed another study which suggests that on Friday mornings there is a 26- to 4-percent drop in traffic volume in the Washington metro region, a so-called ``Friday effect.'' This is promising news because it means that with just a 1- to 2- percent increase in the number of commuters who leave their cars parked and instead telework just 1 or 2 days per week, we could get to the so- called ``Friday effect'' all week long. Last fall, I participated in Virginia Governor James Gilmore's telework task force. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate Governor Gilmore for his strong leadership and involvement in telework. The Governor's task force made a number of recommendations to increase and promote telework. One recommendation was to establish a tax credit toward the purchase and installation of electronic and computer equipment that allow an employee to telework. For example, the cost of a computer, fax machine, modem, phone, printer, software, copier, and other expenses necessary to enable telework could count toward a tax credit, provided the person worked at home a minimum number of days per year. My legislation today would provide a $500 tax credit ``for expenses paid or incurred under a teleworking arrangement for furnishings and electronic information equipment which are used to enable an individual to telework.'' For example, the cost of a computer, fax machine, modem, software, etc., as well as home office furnishing would apply toward the credit. An employee must telework a minimum of 75 days per year to qualify for the tax credit. Both the employer and employee are eligible for the tax credit, but the tax credit goes to whomever absorbs the expense for setting up the at-home worksite. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have many groups joining in support of my legislation. Supporters include: the International Telework Association and Council, Northern Virginia Technology Council, Greater Washington Board of Trade, Covad Communications, National Town Builders Association, George Mason University, Litton Industries, Orbital Sciences Corporation, Consumer Electronic Association, Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce, Capnet, BTG Corporation, Electronic Industries Alliance, Telecommunications Industry Association, American Automobile Association Mid-Atlantic, Dimensions International Inc., Capunet, TManage, Science Applications International Corporation, AT&T, Virginia Economic Bridge, Computer Associates Incorporated, and Dyn Corp. I have stated before that work is something you do, not someplace you go. Hopefully we can make telework as commonplace as the morning traffic report. There is nothing magical about strapping ourselves into a car and driving sometimes up to an hour and a half, arriving at a workplace and sitting before a computer. We can access the same information from a computer in our living rooms. Wouldn't it be great if we could replace the evening rush hour commute with time spent with the family, or coaching little league or other important quality of life matters? Mr. Speaker, I hope our colleagues will consider signing on as a cosponsor of this proposal to promote telework and provide employees choices for the workplace.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my concern about granting China permanent normal trade relations. According to the recently released 1999 State Department human rights report on China, it says, ``human rights deteriorated markedly throughout the year.'' Every Member ought to read the report before they vote. The State Department's human rights report describes the People's Republic of China as ``an authoritarian state in which the Chinese Communist party is the paramount source of power.'' Did my colleagues know that the human rights report, it says that the Chinese Government carries out ``numerous executions after summary trials''? Did my colleagues know that more people were executed in China last year than anywhere else in the world? My goodness, this Congress and this administration wants to give China MFN. For example, the State Department reports that a radio station in China reported that eight people were arrested and quickly executed right after being sentenced. Do my colleagues know that the report says that China has still not accounted for those missing or detained in connection with the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrators? Eleven years. The moms and dads do not know where their children are. And this administration and this Congress wants to grant China permanent trade status? Shame. Do my colleagues know that the State Department says that the Chinese Government has, ``Intensified its efforts to suppress this dissent.''? The report says that by last year's end almost all the leaders of the China Democracy Party were serving long prison terms or were in custody without formal charges. Do the Members of this body know that the report says that the Chinese Government sentenced numerous leaders of the Falun Gong spiritual movement to long prison terms and sent them to psychiatric hospitals? Do the Members know, does the Clinton administration know, does anybody care? The American people care. I do not know who cares up here or in the administration. Do my colleagues know that the State Department reports that the Chinese Government ignores its own laws that are supposed to provide for fundamental human rights? Do my colleagues know that the report says the Chinese Government ignores these laws in practice with abuses that include extrajudicial killings, torture, mistreatment of prisoners, forced confessions, arbitrary arrests, detention and lengthy incommunicado detention? I have been in Beijing Prison Number One, and I can tell my colleagues that it is grim. Do my colleagues know the report says the Chinese Government continues to restrict freedom of religion and has intensified controls on unregistered churches? Do my colleagues know that the report says the government infringes on its citizens' privacy rights, freedom of movement, freedom of press, freedom of free assembly? Do my colleagues know that the report speaks to violence against women, including coercive family planning practices, which sometimes include forced abortions and forced sterilization? They track the women down and force them to have an abortion. The report speaks to trafficking, prostitution, discrimination against women, trafficking in women and children, abuse of children, discrimination against disabled and minorities. These are all problems. This is in the State Department report that every Member ought to read. Do my colleagues know the report says that the Chinese Government continues to restrict tightly workers' rights and forced labor in prison facilities remains a problem? Do my colleagues know the report says child labor persists in China? Do my colleagues know the report says that ``Particularly serious human rights abuses persist in minority areas, especially in Tibet.''? The Chinese government has plundered Tibet. They are persecuting the Muslims; they are persecuting the Catholic Church; they are persecuting the Protestant Church. Do my colleagues know that the report says that unapproved religious groups, including Protestant and Catholic groups, continue to experience varying degrees of official interference, repression and prosecution? Do my colleagues know the report says that the Chinese ``government continues to require all places of religious activity to register with the government.''? Do my colleagues know the report says that Chinese authorities, guided by national policy, make strong efforts to control unapproved Catholic and Protestant churches? Religious services were broken up and house church leaders or adherents were harassed and fined, detained, beaten and tortured? This is in the State Department report. I could go on with other examples of human rights abuses by the Chinese Government, but I would end by asking if my colleagues know that the Chinese Government refuses to allow Catholics to recognize the authority of the Pope in matters of faith and morals? Do my colleagues know the report says that numerous Catholic bishops and believers have been imprisoned and beaten? Do my colleagues know the report says that in May of last year, Bishop Yan Weiping was found dead in Beijing shortly after being released from prison? Do my colleagues know, looking at this picture, that this report says that the whereabouts of some of these bishops, like Bishop Su, reportedly arrested in 1997, are still unclear? Every Member ought to read this report. And after reading this report, I know my colleagues will be with the American people and they will not support permanent normal trade relations for China.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I rise because of my concern about granting permanent normal trade relations to China. Mr. Speaker, there are good people on both sides of this issue and as we consider granting China MFN; we need to be honest in our debate. Yesterday, the New York Times had an article written by Joseph Kahn with the headline, ``Executives Make Trade With China a Moral Issue.'' This article describes how some members of the business community in Florida approached one of our colleagues saying that passing MFN was a moral issue, that extending normal trade status to China is a moral necessity. Mr. Speaker, this could be a dangerous line of reasoning for those who favor granting China MFN, particularly given China's human rights record. In light of what so many Chinese citizens face at the hands of the Chinese Government, the term ``moral'' is of concern. There are now at least eight Roman Catholic bishops being held in prison. Here is a picture of one of those, Bishop Jia. He had been arrested on August 15, 1999, been arrested to prevent him from conducting mass on an important Roman Catholic feast. He is 66 years old, has been in jail in a Chinese labor camp for 20 years. I will tell the gentleman from Florida, this is a moral issue. Just a few days ago, the Chinese Government arrested another Roman Catholic bishop, surrounding him late in the night by 150 policemen. Scores of Roman Catholic laymen were arrested. This is a moral issue. Countless Protestant house church leaders have been arrested and imprisoned simply for practicing their faith. Here is a photo of Pastor Li showing the police grabbing him and taking him off to jail. He has been in and out of prison since 1983. This is a moral issue. I have been to China. I have been to Tiananmen Square and seen where the tanks have rolled over the people and flattened them in the wake. I have been to Beijing Prison Number One where Tiananmen Square demonstrators were working on socks to export to United States. This, I would tell the gentleman from Florida, is a moral issue. I visited Tibet several years ago. In Tibet the Chinese have raped and pillaged that peaceful country, committing untold atrocities upon the Tibetan population. Scores of Buddhist monks and nuns are in prison because of their faith. This is a moral issue. There are more prison labor camps in China now than there were when Solzhenitzen wrote the book ``Gulag Archipelago.'' This is a moral issue. The Muslims in China are being persecuted daily and no one speaks out. This is a moral issue. As a Member of Congress, I am able to attend various national security briefings that I cannot go into here on the House, but I can say that the Chinese military presents fundamental dangers to the West and to our men and women in the armed services. We need to tread very carefully in our actions which give aid to the Chinese military and the government and who knows what the future may hold where the battle lines could be drawn. This is a moral issue. The People's Liberation Army are dumping assault weapons into the United States that are killing women and children. This is a moral issue. So I would say that the Clinton administration and others in support of MFN should be careful in crafting their arguments in support of MFN by using moral language. This administration has done little or nothing to speak up with regard to China's human rights, going so far as to actually meet with the Chinese officials in Tiananmen Square. This administration has done nothing in many of these areas. So, in closing, there are good people on both sides of the issue in this Congress who care deeply about this. The Congress is split, however. I would say we need to focus on the real moral issues; the persecution of the Roman Catholics, the persecution of the Protestants, the persecution of the Buddhists in Tibet, the persecution of the Muslims, the prison labor camps, and the threat to our national security. These are moral issues. I would say to those gentlemen, have they written the State Department to ask that the pastor be released? Have they written the State Department to say, please, let the bishop out; he has been in jail for 20 years? My sense is they have not. And this, I would tell my colleagues on both sides of the issue, this is the moral issue that this Congress will have to face. Every segment of the United States is opposed to granting MFN for China until there is improvement on human rights because the American people care deeply about these moral issues. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record additional information regarding this subject. Tibet--A First Hand Look--August 9-13, 1997 (By Representative Frank R. Wolf) introduction I recently returned from a journey to Tibet where I visited during the period August 9-13, 1997. Accompanied by a member of my staff and by another Western man fluent in Tibetan and steeped in its culture, history and religion, we traveled with U.S. passports and on tourist visas issued by the government of China. At no time was I asked nor did I make known that I was a Member of Congress. Had I done so, I am sure that my visit would not have been approved just as other Members of Congress requesting permission to visit Tibet have been turned down. No sitting Member of the U.S. House of Representatives has visited Tibet since China began in 1959 its relentless (and largely successful) effort to squeeze the life and very soul out of this country, its culture and its people. Only three U.S. Senators have visited Tibet in the last several decades and they were closely shepherded by the Chinese. Aside from U.S. ambassadors in Beijing and Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck, I am unaware of visits by senior officials from any presidential administration during these years. To be sure, an approved delegation visit to Tibet would not likely be all that revealing since frank conversations with individuals could not take place. I cannot think of another place in the world where a tighter lid is kept on open discussion. Government agents, spies and video cameras guard against personal outside contact. Offenders, even suspected offenders, are dealt with quickly and brutally. human rights protection My interest in Tibet and the driving force behind my visit centers on work to help in stopping religious persecution and protecting basic human rights. In 1996, the House passed three measures concerning these issues, one specifically relating to Tibet. This year I introduced H.R. 1685, the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997, which contains specific provisions relating to Tibetan Buddhism. It has over 100 cosponsors. These are areas about which I and others care very deeply. In Tibet humane progress is not even inching along and repressed people live under unspeakable brutal conditions in the dim shadows of international awareness. I want the world to know what is going on in Tibet. When people know, they will demand that China change its policy of boot-heel subjugation and end what one monk I met termed ``cultural genocide.'' I found that the PRC has a near-perfect record of vicious, immediate and unrelenting reprisals against the merest whisper of Tibetan dissent. I met with monks, men and women on the street and others who risked their personal safety and well-being to steal a few moments alone with me to tell me how bad conditions are in Tibet and to petition help and support from the West. tibet on the map Tibet is known as the roof of the world and, indeed it is. The Tibetan plain rises above 12,000 feet. At night, with skies so clear, more stars beam down on the observer than one can imagine. Beneath this roof is the former home of the Dalai Lama, the religious leader who ruled the country from the impressive Potala Palace in the capital of Lhasa. In 1959, when China commenced a relentless program to erase Tibet from the pages of history, the Dalai Lama left his homeland for India where he and countless other Tibetans who followed remain in exile today. Tibet is about the geographic size of western Europe with a Tibetan population of around six million. It has been estimated that in the past two decades nearly one million Tibetans have been killed, starved or tortured. At the same time the PRC has undertaken a program of mass infusion of Chinese people who probably now outnumber Tibetans in their own country. There are no valid census data, but some estimate that in the capital of Lhasa there are about 160,000 Chinese and only about 100,000 Tibetans. The difference in numbers may be less startling in remote areas but the inescapable conclusion is that China is swallowing Tibet. Stores, hotels, bazaars, businesses and tradesmen are largely Chinese. Storefront signs bear large Chinese writing beneath much smaller Tibetan inscriptions. Driving out from Lhasa, one encounters as many Chinese villagers, shepherds, farmers, construction workers and travelers as Tibetan. In short, Tibet is disappearing. Tibet lies along the border of Bhutan, Nepal, India and Pakistan and is rich in resources including agriculture, timber and minerals. Its importance to China is both strategic and economic. China seems certain to maintain its death grip on this land and strives to do so behind sealed doors. There is no independent press in Tibet. I did not see a single newspaper or magazine available to the people. Television is extremely limited and tightly controlled by the PRC. Outside press is not welcome and not allowed. Only Voice of America, to which virtually all Tibetans listen, and Radio Free Asia, which is relatively new, beam information into Tibet. Nothing goes the other way except slips of information carried out by occasional tourists and visitors. tibet up close What do the Tibetan people say? Before my trip I was told that individuals would seek me out as an obvious Western visitor to hear their story. I was also told this was very dangerous to them; that informers were everywhere and being caught talking to a westerner was a guaranteed ticket to prison and more. Frankly, I was skeptical that anyone would approach us. I was wrong. Someone took advantage of almost every opportunity for a guarded word or two. During our first encounter with a Tibetan who realized we were westerners and one of us was fluent in Tibetan, we found that he could not contain himself. ``Many are in jail, most for political reasons.'' We saw Drapchi prison, which is off the beaten path in a slum area. Guards in pairs were ever present. We saw the Sangyip prison complex and then Gusta prison. Prisons seem to be a growth industry in Tibet. We told the Tibetan not to take chances. He said it is so important that we see these places that he didn't care and we continued on what had become a nightmare tour. We passed the main security bureau, the intelligence headquarters and then the prison bureau, each heavily guarded. All the while we heard about monks and nuns and common men and women who were dragged away to prison and tortured. He said, ``Don't worry about me at all,'' and continued to tell of the torture to which prisoners were subjected. They are routinely beaten with sticks and kicked and poked with electric sticks (cattle prods with a huge electric charge). Political prisoners are isolated from the general prison population and kept in unlighted and unheated areas with no sanitary or medical facilities and almost no food or water. He added that the people have no rights. They cannot talk freely. Even though Tibetans view the Dalai Lama as their spiritual and political leader, they are forbidden to show their love for him. Possessing a picture of the Dalai Lama is an offense which could draw harsh and brutal punishment and imprisonment. ``We (Tibetans) must have permission from the Chinese to do everything,'' he said. ``We can do nothing on our own.'' He further said, ``The Chinese say we have freedom of religion but it is a life. Despite the Chinese saying that Tibetans have freedom, there are no freedoms--not even one. Everything is controlled by the Chinese and we are repressed. We listen to Voice of America say that the West supports Tibet, yet they continue doing business with China. That doesn't help. Tibet feels left out and ignored.'' ``The Dalai Lama has asked America and Taiwan for help,'' he continued. ``Please help the Dalai Lama because we are being ruined. The Chinese send Tibetan children to China for education and teach them Chinese ways. Tibet is disappearing little by little. The Tibetan language is being increasingly de-emphasized in schools and our culture is being wiped out.'' All this from one man telling of his agony and the agony of his people. Yet, he ended by saying, ``I am not afraid. Someday the sun will again shine in Tibet.'' Throughout, we found overwhelming support for and faith in the Dalai Lama by every single Tibetan with whom we had contact. religious persecution We visited numerous monasteries where monks, nuns and others sought us out. Their stories amplified what we had already learned. Every monastery we visited was tightly controlled by a small group of resident Chinese overseers. Every report was heard told of a dramatic reduction in the number of monks at each monastery. Many were imprisoned for not turning their back on the Dalai Lama or even refusing to give up pictures of him. Young monks under 15 (it was possible to enter a monastery as young as 6 years of age) were turned out. Since the cultural revolution many monasteries had been largely destroyed. Rebuilding has been painfully slow. The slightest resistance to Chinese interference was met by the harshest punishment. It was common to hear reports of monks being imprisoned, many during ``reeducation'' which involves turning one's back on the Dalai Lama. Imprisonment is for a long time. Imprisonment means years of brutal beatings with infrequent visitors from the outside. And when imprisonment finally ends, monks are expelled from their monastery and exiled to their home village. Many try to escape to India or Nepal. Many do not make it. We were told on several occasions that all monks are afraid. When asked what message they would like me to take back to America, I was told to say that they are not allowed to practice their religion and that the people are suffering greatly. Their biggest hope is to be free from China. One said, ``Please help us. Please help the Dalai Lama.'' He said if he were overheard talking to us he would immediately be put in prison for four or five years. Other monks voiced their concern with not being free to practice their religion. Hundreds have been imprisoned simply for not removing pictures of the Dalai Lama from places of worship. Their prayers are restricted and they have few opportunities to talk away from the overseers, even in the monastery. From monasteries all around Lhasa and the surrounding area, the message was the same. I am reluctant to be too specific in describing conversations because I do not want them traced back to a specific monk or person. To do so would be to impose a heavy sentence and punishment on someone already suffering an unbelievable burden. At one place we met a woman at worship. When she realized we were American, she burst forth. As she talked she began sobbing. Tears poured down her face as she told us of conditions. She said, ``Lhasa may be beautiful on the outside but, inside, it is ugly. We are not allowed to practice what we want to practice. Senior monks are gone and there are no replacements and they are our teachers.'' Asked for a message to America, she said, ``Please help us. Please help the Dalai Lama. When there is pressure from the West, things loosen up a bit before returning to as before. Please have America help us.'' Every single person with whom we spoke had positive feelings toward America. We were always given a thumbs up or a smile or a comment such as, ``America is great.'' People would not stop talking to us, even when their safety was threatened. Sometimes we had to turn away just to keep them from being seen talking with us. Some even risked exposure by gesturing to us from roof tops to meet with them. the chinese stranglehold China's assault on the city, the countryside and the environment has been no less harsh than its assault on the people. Tibetan areas in Lhasa are being demolished and replaced with smaller and more confined structures with the remaining space given over to Chinese uses. The area at the base of the Potala Palace has been completely leveled and a new open space similar to Tiananmen Square has been created. Forests are being leveled and many have seen convoys of trucks piled with timber moving north into China. This is not a pretty picture. The glowing reports of progress from Beijing or Shanghai where business is booming, skyscrapers are rising and industry, education and the standard of living are all soaring has a false ring when heard from the plain of Tibet. America and the rest of the free world must do more to urge China to back off from its clear goal to plunder Tibet. The true story of Tibet is not being told. Aside from a courageous few journalists working largely on their own, the real story about Tibet is not reaching our ears. America and others must strive for more open coverage. The U.S. government's policy seems to be based solely on economics; to open more and more markets with China and to ignore every other aspect of responsible behavior. The American people need to hear this message about Tibet. Knowing the real story, I believe the American public will decide that we need to do better and that we can do better. I hope this report is a beginning. The clock is ticking for Tibet. If nothing is done, a country, its people, religion and culture will continue to grow fainter and fainter and could one day disappear. That would indeed be a tragedy. As one who visited a Soviet prison camp during the cold war (Perm Camp 35) and Romania before and immediately after the overthrow of the ruthless Ceausescu regime to see things first-hand, I believe conditions in Tibet are even more brutal. There are no restraints on Tibet's Chinese overseers. They are the accuser, judge, jury, prison warden and sometimes executioner rolled into one. Punishment is arbitrary, swift, vicious and totally without mercy and without recourse.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing, along with the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), a bill which will require the President to issue the Executive Order on Federal Workforce Transportation in the National Capital Region. No single action will do more to reduce traffic congestion and improve the quality of life of the people who live in the Washington metropolitan area. This Federal order, which has been held at the White House for over 6 months, would help alleviate traffic congestion in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia for all people, those who work for the government and those who work in the private sector. The order would reduce traffic by requiring all Federal agencies to provide a monthly transit benefit to their employees. Currently less than 20 percent of the Federal work force is eligible to receive transit benefits. This action would encourage Federal employees to use mass transit, and could take thousands of cars off the street every day. The order would expand the use of telecommuting and telework for Federal employees, which would also take cars off the road, give Federal employees the opportunity to telework, where they can have more choices and opportunities, and make it a better environment. Lastly, the order would increase carpool benefits, shuttle service between mass transit points and agency worksites, and allow for alternative work schedules. Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that the Federal government has a responsibility to help reduce air pollution, and that motor vehicle traffic is the major source of pollution in this region. This Executive Order would take cars off the road, help clean up the air, and yet the White House is sitting on it. Let me read exactly what the Executive Order says about air pollution. It says, ``In furtherance of the purposes of the Clean Air Act and the Federal Employees Clean Air Incentives Act, the Federal government, as the largest single employer in the Nation's Capital Region, has a responsibility to reduce the traffic congestion and motor vehicle-generated air pollution. . . .'' This Executive Order for the most part is an environmental document, and yet the Clinton-Gore White House is refusing to approve it. Mr. Speaker, allow me to read from the implementation requirements, which state, ``For several years, there have been increasingly dire warnings about the negative consequences of traffic congestion and air pollution in the Capital region. Studies show that adverse impacts on the economy, quality of life, energy resources, environment, and public health.'' Why is the White House sitting on the Executive Order which they know will benefit the health of the people who live in the region, but also give Federal employees control over their own lives, and also take automobiles and cars off the streets of Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia so people can get back and forth to work and spend more time with their families? It is a quality of life issue there. The simple fact that this order would reduce traffic congestion in our region is reason enough to sign it. Now we learn it will help with regard to the environment. The document is important. The action is needed for now. Yet, this has been sitting on the President's desk for over 6 months. The bill will go in today. We will attempt to pass this bill. But I would hope and ask the White House to sign the Executive Order so we can give Federal employees this opportunity, give them opportunities to telework, but also take cars off the streets whereby we can have a better quality of life in this region for everyone who drives.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege as the representative of the 10th Congressional District of Virginia to introduce today legislation which would designate two U.S. postal buildings located in Northern Virginia to honor former Congressmen Joel T. Broyhill and Joseph L. Fisher, both of whom served as the representative of Virginia's 10th District. Joining me in support are Northern Virginia Congressmen Tom Davis and Jim Moran. The Honorable Joel T. Broyhill Born in Hopewell, Virginia, November 4, 1919, the Honorable Joel T. Broyhill was first elected to the Eighty-third Congress in 1952 as a Republican and served for 22 years as the representative of the 10th District. He was the first Member of Congress to represent the newly created congressional district. He began his congressional service as a member of the then House Post Office and Civil Service Committee and District of Columbia Committee and later became a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. Assisting the people he represented was the cornerstone of his service in Congress. According to the Almanac of American Politics 1972: ``There were few offices that took care of constituents' needs and complaints with more efficiency.'' The Almanac also describes Congressman Broyhill as a Member of Congress that ``should be credited with voting his conscience'' Congressman Broyhill is a decorated veteran and for four years served bravely along with thousands of other young American soldiers in World War II as a captain in the 106th Infantry Division. At the age of 25, Captain Broyhill fought in one of the most decisive and costly conflicts of WWII--the ``Battle of Bulge.'' He was taken prisoner and held in a German POW camp until he heroically escaped and was able to rejoin advancing Allied forces. Congressman Broyhill has dedicated most of his life to serving his country in both a public and military capacity. His commitment and devotion to public service is deserving of recognition, and it is appropriate that the postal building at 3409 Lee Highway in Merrifield, Virginia, be renamed in his honor. Congressman Broyhill is the father of three daughters and one stepdaughter, and resides today in Arlington, Virginia. The Late Honorable Joseph L. Fisher Born in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, January 11, 1914, the late Congressman Joseph L. Fisher was first elected as the representative of the 10th District in 1974 as a Democrat and began his service in the Ninety-fourth Congress. He served for three terms as the second Member of Congress to represent Virginia's 10th Congressional District. Congressman Fisher held a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University and served as a Senior Economic Advisor on the Council of Economic Advisors during the Truman Administration. During his six years in Congress he was a member of the House Ways and Means and Budget committees and earned a reputation for his diligent work on taxation, energy and budget policy. He also served as the chair of seven task forces all charged with important national policy issues. He held the position of economist at the U.S. Department of State, before serving his country in World War II in the Pacific theater from 1943 to 1946. He was elected to the Arlington County Board in 1963 and became an advocate for regional air, water pollution, and transit improvement projects. He also served as chairman of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. After his service in Congress, he continued his public service during Virginia Governor Charles S. Robb's administration as secretary of human resources for the Commonwealth of Virginia. He was also a professor of political economy at George Mason University and chairman of the National Academy of Public Administration. He also served as head of the Unitarian Universalist Association, the church's international administrative body. Former Virginia Governor L. Douglas Wilder once stated, ``Joe proved how well one can serve the people. He did it every day, pushing for the kinds of things that would truly improve the quality of life for all of his constituents.'' Congressman Fisher dedicated his life to public service and was a committed advocate of the causes in which he believed. It is fitting to recognize his service and commitment by renaming the post office located at 3118 Washington Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia, in tribute to him. Congressman Fisher died in Arlington, Virginia, February 19, 1992, and is survived by his wife Margaret, seven children, 16 grandchildren, and two great grandsons. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to honor two former members for their dedicated public service.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak about what has happened in the African country of Sierra Leone. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and I visited Sierra Leone this past December. We were horrified at the atrocities that we saw; men and women with their arms and legs and ears cut off. Throughout Sierra Leone, rebel groups have tortured and killed and maimed thousands to gain control of the country's diamond industry, and these rebels have committed unbelievable acts that are hard to even look at. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) has introduced legislation to stop the trafficking of conflict diamonds that have fueled so much of the death and destruction. H.R. 3188 will require that all diamonds bought and sold in the U.S. be identified as to their country of origin. I believe that the bill of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) will help end the maiming and the killing in Sierra Leone, and I urge all Members to please call the office of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and cosponsor this bill so we can bring an end to the maiming and cutting off of legs and arms and the killing of people.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my grave concern in granting China permanent normal trade relations. A recent Zogby International poll shows that the American people overwhelmingly oppose granting permanent trade relations with China until human rights and religious freedom improve. Sixty-eight percent of the Republicans, 70 percent of the Democrats, 65 percent of Independents insist on better human rights and religious freedom within China before establishing permanent MFN. Every age group, every gender, every income, every political spectrum insists on human rights. The American people know about the Chinese government's continued persecution of the Protestant House Church. They know the Chinese Government has seven Catholic Bishops in jail. They know that the Chinese has 10 Catholic priests in prison. They know they have plundered Tibet, and they know they are persecuting the Muslims. I personally believe if the Congress votes to grant permanent normal trade relations, or MFN, for China, Congress will be on the wrong side of the American people and I believe on the wrong side of history. Mr. Speaker, I provide for the Record documents in support of my comments. 39. Should the US have a permanent open market with China and admit the country to the global trade system or should the US insist on better human rights and freedom of religion in China before we establish a permanent open market? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Region Party Primary Union

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 235, 106th Congress, and as the designee of the majority leader, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to wish Scott Palmer, Speaker Hastert's chief of staff, a Happy Birthday. I think he had about several the last couple of months.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 forms a new motor carrier safety administration that is charged with improving motor carrier safety from its current deplorable state. This bill also includes a number of needed changes to the commercial drivers license program and motor carrier operations along our southern border. This is a good beginning. For the past year, the House Appropriations Committee, and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, have been reviewing a variety of truck safety issues. What we found was appalling. The Office of Motor Carriers, which until recently has been housed within the Federal Highway Administration, has allowed motor carrier safety to decline dramatically. Last year 5,374 people died in truck related accidents. The year before that, 5,398 people died--a decade high. During this same period, safety reviews on trucking companies dropped from 5 per month to one per month, and civil penalties declined to $1,600. Because of this, and other problems, the Department of Transportation Inspector General, the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, trucking representatives, the law enforcement community, and safety advocates all agree that the Office of Motor Carriers has been ineffective in reducing trucking accidents and fatalities. The bill before you will address many of the problems found by Congress and these groups. It will strengthen truck safety activities both at the federal and at the state levels. As noted, it creates a new safety administration, which as its name implies, will be focused on safety. It is critical Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary appoint a good and decent person to the position of administrator, who will focus on safety first, making it their daily goal to reduce the number of truck related fatalities on our nation's highways. This person should not only be knowledgeable in the area of truck safety but be free of any conflicts of interest. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to express my appreciation, and that of the nation, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for moving this bill. Because of his efforts, along with those of the gentlemen from Wisconsin, Minnesota and West Virginia, thousands of families across the country will be spared that terrible phone call informing them that a relative has been involved in an accident. I want the world to know Mr. Speaker, that because of Mr. Shuster's leadership on this issue, America's highways will be safer. He deserves our thanks.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to our colleagues' attention news about our former colleague, the Honorable Thomas M. Foglietta of Pennsylvania, who now serves as the U.S. ambassador to Italy. On November 9, he was presented a South Korean human rights award for supporting democracy and human rights in that country. The annual award was presented in Seoul, South Korea, by the Korean Institute for Human Rights, founded in 1983 by South Korean President Kim Dae-jung. Ambassador Foglietta established a relationship with Kim Dae-jung in the mid-1980's when he served in Congress. Kim was in exile in the United States at that time. Ambassador Foglietta accompanied him back to his beloved South Korea and the two were assaulted at the airport. This year, the City of Philadelphia presented its prestigious Liberty Medal to President Kim. Ambassador Foglietta campaigned for almost a decade to have this award made to Kim Dae-jung. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a recent article from The Philadelphia Inquirer about this award. We offer our congratulations to our former colleague. [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 2, 1999] Foglietta To Get Rights Award in S. Korea--The Ambassador to Italy Will Be Honored for Supporting Democracy in That Asian Nation (By Jeffrey Fleishman) Rome--U.S. Ambassador Thomas M. Foglietta will receive a South Korean human-rights award next week for supporting democracy in a country where he was beaten 15 years ago as he traveled with a leading political dissident. The dissident, Kim Dae Jung, is now South Korea's president. The award from the Korean Institute for Human Rights--to be presented Nov. 9 in Seoul--is a testament to a friendship that endured through a long battle against dictatorships and corrupt politics. ``Knowing Kim has been one of the high points of my life. He has been one of my great teachers,'' said Foglietta, the former Philadelphia congressman who is now ambassador to Italy. ``Kim has always been so determined to bring democracy to his country. This award is a great honor for me.'' Kim and Foglietta met in November of 1984 when Kim was a political exile receiving medical treatment in the United States. Before leaving South Korea, Kim had been imprisoned and tortured for years and was reviled by the government of Chun Doo Wan, an army general who had seized power in 1979. During a 3\1/2\-hour meeting, Kim told Foglietta that he wanted to return to his country. Fearful of assassination, he asked Foglietta to accompany him. ``My first thought was that the military regime would try to kill Kim upon his return,'' said Foglietta. ``It was only months earlier that [opposition leader] Benigno Aquino was assassinated when he returned to the Philippines. I told Kim this and he said, ``They won't try anything if you go with me.' I called the television networks. I told them to be in Seoul at this time and date. I figured the Korean government wouldn't harm Kim in front of TV cameras.`` On Feb. 8, 1985, Kim, Foglietta and a small American delegation, including television crews, arrived at Seoul's Kimpo Airport. Military police had blocked roads, preventing thousands of Kim's supporters from reaching the airport. Inside the terminal, 50 to 75 security police pulled Kim and his wife, Lee Hee Ho, from the entourage and corralled them toward an elevator Foglietta and others in the delegation, including U.S. Ambassador Robert White, were manhandled by police as Kim was carried away. Kim endured this arrest as he had the others, and in 1997, after 40 years of protests, failed assassination attempts, six years in jail and 55 house arrests, Kim was sworn in as president in South Korea's first peaceful transition of power. Foglietta stood on the stage as Kim took his oath. ``When I stood at Kim's inauguration, I remembered that day when we were punched, kicked and bloodied,'' said Foglietta, who over the years has helped Kim with campaigns and democratic reforms. ``I guess I always knew he'd be president of South Korea.'' Last July, at Foglietta's urging, Kim was awarded Philadelphia's Liberty Medal during a ceremony at Independence Hall.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this resolution. I have visited Chechnya. I was in Chechnya from May 28 to June 2 of 1995. And while I am not here to attack anyone, I think at this time it is fair to say that this administration could have done more to be a force in Chechnya. One of the recommendations that we made after our trip was that the administration appoint a prominent American with negotiating experience such as former Secretary of State James Baker, or former Senator George Mitchell, who frankly probably deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for what he has done in Ireland, or former Senator Sam Nunn, to help bring the Chechnya situation to a close. We were in the village of Samashki where a massacre took place, and the people came up and told us about the Russian soldiers who came into the village and took the heroin that they carry when they are wounded and mixed the heroin with fruit juices and injected it into their veins and shot up the whole time. We have pictures of the town on video. We have the interviews with the people. Now, if my colleagues looked at The Washington Post the other day, the Russian soldiers have gone back into the same town and have bombarded the town. So rather than laying blame, although I do think the administration could have done more, I think it would be important to do what the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) said, what I heard him say, which is to put some pressure on the government with regard to aid. I think the situation is different than Kosovo, although I was one of the 31 Republican Members that voted for the bombing of Kosovo. But there are a large number of people, and I believe for many, the fact that Chechnya is so far away and the fact that they are Muslims and the fact that few people have visited there, the fact that very few people are willing or able to speak out on the part of the West, makes it a difficult issue. So this resolution is very, very good. I hope it passes with a unanimous vote. I would also ask that perhaps the administration could pick one person with strong negotiating skills, who would go not with a club, but go to Russia and try to do everything possible to stop the shelling and the bombing. If they do not, this winter will be so brutal. I would be one who would support aid by the Western governments, including ours, to the people who have gotten out of there and gone into Ingushetia. But we should do more, and bring some pressure on the Russians to stop the activity which is taking place. With that, I hope the resolution passes with a unanimous vote.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of attending Veterans Day ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery on November 11 and was present to hear President Clinton single out a World War II veteran who is the last veteran of that war to still be on active duty. He is 80-year-old Capt. Earl Fox, a Coast Guard doctor, who spent his last Veterans Day in uniform last week. He is retiring from active duty this week. I want to submit an article from the November 11, 1999, Washington Post, which is a tribute to Capt. Fox and his years of dedicated service to his nation. He is a patriot and hero and we salute him. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 11, 1999] World War II Veteran Soldiers On, Alone--Active-Duty Doctor; 80, Salutes His Generation (By Roberto Suro) Two weeks ago, Capt. Earl R. Fox learned that he is the last World War II veteran still on active duty in the U.S. armed forces. Since then he has dwelled in memories, wondering whether he will be worthy of the fallen when he walks among Arlington's serried tombstones this afternoon. ``I have felt a weight on me to expend every effort to make it honorable for them,'' said the 80-year-old Coast Guard physician. Fox will have breakfast at the White House today and then speak at a wreath-laying ceremony at the national cemetery. This will be his final Veterans Day in uniform--he is retiring next week--and he describes himself as ``the last direct physical link'' between today's military and the warriors of Midway, Normandy and Iwo Jima. ``One generation forms the backbone for the next to build on,'' says the text he has prepared for the commemoration. ``As my generation fades into the mist of collective memory called tradition, you will continue the process for the next generation of your sons and daughters. In this way, those who have given the last full measure of devotion will live forever . . .'' As the Virginia native rehearsed his brief speech for a visitor to his office at Coast Guard headquarters yesterday, his voice cracked. He stopped in mid-sentence, reached for a handkerchief and apologized for the show of emotion. ``I had classmates who did not come home,'' he said. ``I had shipmates who did not make it. I knew these men well. I knew what they thought and what they thought about. And I am filled with humility and faith in God, because I feel like I am here today because of their courage and bravery.'' After five years of service on patrol-torpedo boats and submarines, Fox left the Navy in 1947 to attend medical school and then to prosper as a physician in St. Petersburg, Fla. In 1974, he retired at the age of 55 to enjoy his 43- foot yacht and life as a yacht club commodore who made a practice of entertaining officers from the local Coast Guard air station. He was at the club one day when an emergency call came in. A man aboard a pleasure boat was suffering a heart attack. With the Coast Guard's doctor away, Fox was asked to help. Within minutes, he was being lowered from a helicopter at sea. Fox enjoyed the experience so much that he agreed to join up when the local commanding officer suggested he could get a commission under a program that waived age limits for physicians. He made only one demand: He wanted to go to flight school. Eventually, he learned to fly helicopters as well as airplanes. For 16 years, until 1990, Fox served as a flight surgeon at Coast Guard stations up and down the East Coast, making more than a dozen helicopter rescues. For the past nine years, he has worked as the senior medical officer in the personnel department at Coast Guard headquarters. Combining his Navy and Coast Guard service, Fox has now spent 30 years in the military, the point at which most officers must retire. But he said his decision to leave uniform is driven primarily by a desire to spend more time with his wife of 56 years, Reba. It might be mere serendipity that this genial octogenarian is the last of 16 million World War II veterans to don his ribbons and decorations every working day. But Fox seems the perfect representative of a generation that, in his words, ``experienced both great times and times of desperation.'' Thinking back to nighttime battles fought in tropical waters, Fox said, ``when things get tough you need more to fall back on than yourself and the present.'' He had the heritage of his father, grandfather and great-grandfather, all military officers. But he also had shipmates. ``We were bound together by common purpose,'' he recalled. ``The trust we had in each other made us strong.'' Fox has a small photograph, now fading to sepia, that shows 10 sailors in jaunty poses at the bow of a PT boat, one of the mahogany-hulled speedsters dispatched on hit-and-run missions against enemy fleets. Seated on stools before them are two officers. It's the summer of 1943 and Fox is already a decorated combat veteran and boat commander at the age of 23. To his right sits an even younger man Al Haywood, just out of Yale and assigned as the boat's executive officer. A few weeks after the picture was taken, they were on patrol off the coast of New Guinea when a single Japanese airplane appeared out of nowhere. It strafed the boat. A sailor fell wounded. Haywood rushed to his side. As the fighter wheeled and dove for another run at the boat, Haywood threw himself over the injured man. The airplane's gunfire ``stitched him from head to toe,'' recalled Fox, who buried Haywood at sea. The wounded crewman survived. ``Remembering people like Haywood and the many, many others like him is important,'' said Fox, ``because those memories of honor and sacrifice are the fabric our country is made of.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express our appreciation for the service that has been given to our country and to the world by A.M. Rosenthal. This past Friday was Mr. Rosenthal's last day at the New York Times. Mr. Rosenthal had a distinguished career at the New York Times beginning his tenure at the Times at age 21. He left his imprimatur on journalism and on the world through his opinion columns that exposed many cases of human rights violations and religious persecution. Mr. Rosenthal was not afraid to speak truth to tyranny. He wrote unabashedly and boldly for those who suffered under egregious and appalling situations, while others remained silent. Mr. Rosenthal addressed a wide spectrum of tyranny and never backed down. His wise words were the finest examples of speaking truth to abuses of power. His column spoke truth for the voiceless, freedom and liberty for the oppressed. His pen was truly mightier than the sword. Natan Sharansky, Harry Wu, Andrei Sakharov, and countless brave others have him to thank for stirring world opinion into forcing their freedom. Mr. Speaker, I include the following articles for the Record: [From the New York Times, Nov. 5, 1999] Writer-Editor Ends a 55-Year Run A Final Column for The Times, but Don't Say Retirement (By Clyde Haberman) After 55 years as a reporter, foreign correspondent, editor and columnist, A.M. Rosenthal spent his last working day at The New York times yesterday packing up his memories the only way he knew how: by writing about them. Mr. Rosenthal ended a run of nearly 13 years on the newspaper's Op-Ed page with a column that appears today, looking back on a career that made him one of the most influential figures in American journalism in the last half of this century. ``I've seen happier days,'' he acknowledged in an interview. But there was one word that he said he would never use to describe his new status. Don't dare to whisper ``retirement,'' he said, recalling what Barbara Walters, an old friend, told him a few weeks ago when it became clear that his weekly column, ``On My Mind,'' was near an end. ``She said to me, `But Abe, you're starting fresh,' '' he said, ``And I suddenly realized, of course I was. Then I realized that I'm not going alone. I'm taking my head with me. I'm going to stay alive intellectually.'' Mr. Rosenthal, 77 and universally known as Abe, said he intended to continue ``writing journalistically,'' though at this point he had no specific plans. ``I want to remain a columnist,'' he said. There was an unmistakable end-of-an-era feel to the announcement yesterday that Mr. Rosenthal would leave a newspaper that, family aside, had been his life. Indeed, during his 17 years as its chief editor, until he stepped down in 1986 with the title of executive editor, ``Rosenthal'' and ``The Times'' were pretty much synonyms for many readers--often, though not always, with their approval. Abraham Michael Rosenthal brought raw intelligence and enormous passion to the job, qualities that were apparent from his first days at The Times, as a part-time campus correspondent at City College in the 1940's. The college was tuition-free in those days, and a good thing, too, said Mr. Rosenthal, who was born in Canada and grew up in poverty in the Bronx. ``Free tuition was more than I could afford,'' he said yesterday. After becoming a full-time reporter in 1944, he covered the fledgling United Nations. Then, from 1954 to 1963, he was a foreign correspondent, based in India, Poland and Japan. Covering India was a personal high point. But it was in Poland, whose Communist rulers expelled him in 1959, that he won a Pulitzer Prize. It was also where he wrote an article for The New York Times Magazine that, among the thousands he produced, contained a passage that some quote to this day. He had been to the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz. ``And so,'' he wrote, ``there is no news to report from Auschwitz. There is merely the compulsion to write something about it, a compulsion that grows out of a restless feeling that to have visited Auschwitz and then turned away without having said or written anything would be a most grievous act of discourtesy to those who died there.'' The passion in that paragraph carried into his time as editor. On his watch, in 1971, The Times published the so-called Pentagon Papers, a secret government history of the Vietnam War. That led to a landmark Supreme Court decision upholding the primacy of the press over government attempts to impose ``prior restraint'' on what it may print. Under Mr. Rosenthal, the once ponderous Times became a far livelier paper. Major innovations were quickly copied at other newspapers, notably special sections on lifestyles and science that were introduced in the 1970's. But his biggest accomplishment, in his view, was keeping ``the paper straight,'' which meant keeping the news columns free of writing that he felt stumbled into editorial judgment. On that score, he did not lack for critics. With his passion came dark moods and a soaring temper. Mr. Rosenthal made many journalists' careers. But he also undid some. Even now, years after his editorship, his defenders and his attackers talk about him with equal vehemence. Mr. Rosenthal agreed yesterday that people tended not to be neutral about him. Many will be saddened by his departure from The Times. ``And,'' he said, ``there'll be people dancing.'' His column on the Op-Ed page, which first appeared on Jan. 6, 1987, often stirred similar emotions among readers. Over the years, recurring themes emerged: Israel's security needs, human rights violations around the world, this country's uphill war against drugs. He focused on those themes once more for his final column. Then he turned to the mundane task of packing up mementos as well as memories. Off the wall came a framed government document from the 1950's attesting that the Canadian had become an American. It was, he said with a cough to beat back rising emotions, among his most valuable possessions.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I saw the Berlin Wall the first time in 1982. It was moving. I am honored to have this opportunity in support of this resolution to have the 10th anniversary but also for Freedom Day. People say the Berlin Wall fell down. The Berlin Wall did not fall down. The Berlin Wall was pushed down. Ronald Reagan pushed the Berlin Wall down when he gave the evil empire speech. The Pope helped push the Wall down. Lane Kirkland of the AFL-CIO when he gave money to Lech Walesa and solidarity helped push the Wall down. Natan Shiransky, when he got out of gulag 35 and a Russian said walk straight across the bridge, zigzagged back and forth against the bridge in defiance of the Soviet Union. Natan Shiransky helped push the Wall down. Elena Bonner helped push the Wall down. Zacharov helped push the Wall down. Whittaker Chambers, the gentleman from Mississippi, when Whittaker Chambers wrote in the book Witness, he said, ``When I left the Communist party, I believed that I was leaving the winning side and joining the losing side, and nothing I saw has made me think that I was wrong.'' Whittaker Chambers was wrong on this point, and Ronald Reagan was right on this point. In fairness to Members on both sides of the aisle in strong support of anti-Communism was right. Lastly, in honor of Colonel Nicholson who was the last member of the military. It was a military designated in West Berlin who was killed by the Soviets in East Berlin. We honor him with this resolution. I want my children to remember. I want my grandchildren to remember. I want everyone to remember. The Berlin Wall did not fall. These people pushed it down.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute today to a young man who was a policeman in Winchester, Virginia, which is in my district, who was shot and killed on Friday night, October 29. Sergeant Ricky Timbrook was killed as he was chasing a suspect down the street. Sergeant Timbrook's death has shocked and saddened the entire northern Shenandoah Valley. More than 3,000 people attended his funeral last Thursday, many of whom were law enforcement officers from all over the area and around the country. According to news reports, he may be the first Winchester police officer to have been shot and killed in the line of duty. Ricky was 32 years old. He and his wife Kelly had just completed the construction of a new home. They were expecting their first child, a boy, who is due on Christmas Day. He joined the Winchester Police Department almost 8 years ago. Just over a year ago, he was promoted to sergeant in charge of a brand-new department, the Special Enforcement Team. I want to extend my deepest condolences to Sergeant Timbrook's family as we pay tribute to him and to law enforcement officers and their families everywhere who routinely go into harm's way to protect us. My father was a police officer on the streets of Philadelphia and I know the worry a police officer's family can feel when a husband, father, brother, or son goes out the door each day to begin their tour of duty. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, more than 14,000 officers have died while performing their duties. On average, one law enforcement officer is killed somewhere in America every other day, and an average of 160 officers die in the line of duty every year. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an obituary about Sergeant Timbrook and an editorial which appeared in the Winchester Star November 2, 1999, as follows: [From The Winchester Star, Nov. 2, 1999] In the Line of Duty--In Policeman's Death, All Are Diminished It says something about the quality of life here in the northern Valley that, before the horrific events of last Friday night, it had been more than 60 years since a local law enforcement officer had fallen in the line of duty. However, it also says something about today's society that even here, in our largely peaceful corner of the world, violence can erupt and snatch from us the life of a fine young officer. The slaying of Sgt. Ricky Lee Timbrook should prompt us to pause and reflect not merely on the utter fragility of our worldly existence, but on the tenuous line on which our social contract rests. The primary reason people, down through the ages, have formed communities is for reasons of mutual comfort and security. This contract, of course, entails a provision for public protection--i.e. the police. The presence of the men and women ensured with that protection--the fabled ``thin blue line''--quietly assures us that the social contract is being enforced. Thus, when one of these officers--one of these men and women who take an oath ``to serve and protect'' us--falls in the performance of this essential duty, we as a community feel it. First and foremost, of course, we feel for the man himself, because we know he died so that we might live free from the worries daily addressed by our men and women in blue. And, to be sure, we feel for his loved ones-- particularly a baby, yet unborn, who will never know its father--and for his fellow officers, to whom the awful knowledge is hammered home anew that they live on the proverbial edge, that violence awaits their kind with every routine call, that death walks closer to them than to the rest of us. However, our tranquility, too, is shattered, in the knowledge that one of the exemplary people we pay to step forward and protect us has been taken from our midst. We grieve because Ricky Timbrook no longer rides in his patrol car through our streets, and no longer walks the streets of this town. By all accounts, Sgt. Timbrook was a fine policeman, but an even better man, one to whom we confidently entrusted our security. We at The Star knew him not only in his role as a crimefigther, but also as the schools' DARE officer, the crew-cut policeman who one day, two years ago, posed happily for a photo with the winner of DARE program's annual essay contest. Others, of course, knew him better--as husband, son, brother, friend, and comrade. And so, in his untimely death, we are all diminished--and immeasurably saddened.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I rise in very strong support of this resolution to express our sympathy to the Chafee family. Senator Chafee had an outstanding record, as the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) expressed, both in the military and as Secretary of Navy and in the Congress. He was a strong, good friend of the State of Virginia. I had the opportunity to sit with Senator Chafee several months ago at the dedication when they named the CIA after former President George Bush. He expressed at that time that he was leaving and very anxious to go back and live in his home State of Rhode Island. So I wanted to just present myself here and say to the Chafee family and to the United States Senate, we are very, very sorry.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, for bringing up H.R. 2679 on the floor of the House today. Truck safety is a topic in which we both have an interest and it is important that this House continue to address it. The current structure of motor carrier enforcement is just not working. It has allowed trucks to operate on the road that are unsafe and has resulted in over 5300 deaths for several years. In short, the status of truck safety is not good. This bill, while not perfect is a good first step towards improving safety in the trucking industry. For the record, most truck drivers and trucking companies operate in a safe manner. They care not only about making the delivery on time, but making it safely. But there are those on the margins who unfortunately operate unsafely. It is those that this bill focuses on. I would like to bring to the House's attention a letter from safety groups that has recommendations to improve truck safety and I believe the Congress and Administration should address these recommendations as this bill moves toward enactment. The letter follows: Urgent--Vote Today Public Citizen Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. Trauma Foundation. Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH). Parents Against Tired Truckers. Consumer Federation of America. safety groups and truck crash survivors urge members of congress to strengthen safety provisions in h.r. 2679 October 14, 1999. Dear Representative: Today the House is expected to vote on H.R. 2679, a bill to establish a National Motor Carrier Administration in the U.S. Department of Transportation. This legislation is an outgrowth of a number of reports from the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the General Accounting Office as well as hearings held by the National Transportation Safety Board and the Congress documenting the failures of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety program: failure to conduct inspections, failure to impose penalties, failure to issue safety standards, failure to collect and analyze accurate data, failure to conduct important scientific research, and failure to maintain an appropriate arms length relationship with the regulated industry. Taxpayer dollars have been squandered and safety has been seriously compromised. Every year, more than 5,300 people die in crashes involving motor carriers and 127,000 are injured. Although big trucks account for only 3% of registered vehicles, they are involved in 9% of all fatal crashes and 12% of all highway deaths. Additionally, more than one out of five (22%) of passenger vehicle occupant deaths on our highways result from crashes with large trucks. Not surprisingly, in crashes involving a truck and passenger car, 98% of the fatalities are passenger car occupants. The fatalities are the equivalent of a major fatal airline crash every two weeks. It is a national disgrace that our federal regulatory and enforcement agency has failed to protect our American families on the highway. We commend the House for moving swiftly in this session to enact motor carrier legislation. H.R. 2679 makes some important improvements in truck safety with provisions such as detailed attention to strengthening the Commercial Driver License Program. We also appreciate the emphasis in H.R. 2679 on ``safety as highest priority.'' In addition, the Manager's amendments of October 13, 1999, appropriately devote extra attention in a new provision to the problem of illegal operations by foreign carriers which can pose a growing problem to highway safety if not checked, although we are concerned with the requirement that the violation be ``intentional.'' However, H.R. 2679, even with these and other provisions, can only be regarded at best as a tentative first step towards comprehensive motor carrier safety reform. Not only does the bill fail to address numerous, major areas of need to ensure significantly improved federal regulation and enforcement, but it essentially compromises the basic safety mission of a new independent motor carrier agency by charging it with oversight of economic laws and regulations, including responsibilities only recently assigned to the new Surface Transportation Board (STB) by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Termination Act of 1995. This commingling of economic administrative duties with safety stewardship creates potentially conflicting missions which could lead to safety policy choices that are inevitably balanced with issues affecting the productivity and economic health of the trucking industry. In fact, H.R. 2679 actually increases the likelihood of economic considerations adversely influencing agency safety policy decisions because it places the administration of several sections of 49 United States Code in the new agency which had formerly been assigned, first, to the old ICC and, more recently, to the new STB. It is clear that, if enacted in its present form, H.R. 2679 would permit the agency to subvert the goals of safety regulation and enforcement by weighing them in a scale balanced explicitly with the economic needs of industry. We are also concerned that the major problems identified by the Inspector General, the Government Accounting Office, and numerous witnesses are not addressed in this legislation, yet this legislation is an unprecedented opportunity to change the course of truck safety. With the addition of the following provisions recommended as well on many occasions by the safety organizations and survivors of truck crashes, the legislation would go a long way towards stemming this carnage on our highways. We encourage members of Congress to propose amendments that address the following key deficiencies in H.R. 2679 to achieve strong legislation that will make our highways safer: There is no direct charge to the new motor carrier agency explicitly to implement the findings and recommendations in the comprehensive report issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General in April 1999 which delineates the multiple failures of the Office of Motor Carriers and Highway Safety (OMCHS). The early provisions of the bill, such as Section 102, which simply consign important motor carrier safety enhancement goals to the discretion of the Secretary, cannot substitute for specific legislated targets and is essentially hortatory rather than prescriptive for agency compliance. The bill fails to assign appropriate shared jurisdiction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for data acquisition and evaluation, including violation records and crash causation analysis, and for regulating retrofitted safety features, safety component maintenance, and safety equipment performance of in-service commercial motor vehicles, a responsibility which could substantially improve on-the-road motor carrier safety. The NHTSA issues new truck safety standards and should be responsible for concurrent issuance of requirements to maintain these standards in trucks on the road. There have been significant conflict of interest problems involving research contracts at the OMC. The agency is ignoring general regulations that direct government agencies to avoid conflicts of interest in the awarding of contracts. As the Teamsters testified, OMC has awarded numerous contracts to the regulated industry to develop safety standards governing that industry. This is unacceptable and the bill should prohibit such conflicts. A number of major areas of need regarding the qualifications of both new commercial drivers and of entrant motor carriers are not addressed. Among these are the pressing need for commercial driver entry-level and advanced training and certification as conditions for taking the basic CDL and advanced endorsement examinations, and for a proficiency examination requiring demonstrated understanding of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations by new drivers and by applicant carriers seeking interstate operating authority. Specific reform of data needs such as mandating that the States maintain certain violation records, including traffic and felony violations, as well as a 10-year calendar governing Out of Service order violations, is not contained in H.R. 2679, although it is widely acknowledged that the Commercial Driver Licensing Information System is poorly administered and has either mistaken, outdated, or missing data entries needed to track commercial drivers for potential license suspension and driver disqualification. H.R. 2679 not only fails to mandate specific minimum penalties that must be imposed by the Secretary, it weakens its direction to the Secretary in Section 208 to impose ``civil penalties at a level calculated to ensure prompt and sustained compliance'' by providing blanket discretion to the Secretary not only to lower the amount of such penalties but even to forgive repeated violations of safety law and regulation without penalty. Other legislative initiatives, such as the need to consider extending the CDL requirements downward to commercial vehicles less than 26,000 pounds, closing the gap between federal motor carrier safety standards and the often far weaker state standards which nevertheless pass muster for securing Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funds, and addressing the growing problem of high rates of deaths and injuries inflicted by intrastate-only motor carriers, are simply absent in H.R. 2679. These deficiencies are far from a comprehensive listing of the missing provisions and failed approach of H.R. 2679 in dealing with a large and growing problem of weak federal safety oversight, widespread scofflaw conduct by drivers and carriers, systematic falsification of commercial driver paper logbooks, the need to strengthen federal enforcement mechanisms and insulate a new motor carrier agency from industry influence. Also, as the Administration's letter points out, the word ``safety'' should be in the name of the new agency, since that is its mission. If taxpayer dollars are going to be spent on the creation of a new agency to regulate and enforce motor carrier safety, it should be equipped with the authority to address all recognized problems and not just a few of them. The American public is virtually unanimous that large trucks are a source of great danger on the highway and that action should be taken to make them safer. In two very recent polls, when asked whether they would pay more for goods shipped by trucks in exchange for truck safety improvements, 78% of the public said ``yes.'' An overwhelming 93% said that allowing truck drivers to drive longer hours is less safe and 80% said it is much less safe. A large 81% favors installation of new technology such as driver warning systems and black boxes in trucks to improve enforcement. On that point, the National Transportation Safety Board has recommended again and again for over 15 years that black boxes be installed in trucks yet the Office of Motor Carriers has never initiated such a requirement. The proposals listed above are reasonable and modest. If 5,300 people were killed every year and 127,000 people injured in airline crashes, the House would be enacting a bill addressing all facets of the problem. It would be holding emergency hearings condemning airline operations, the newspapers would put it on the front page, and it would be the lead story on the evening news. The trauma, the heartbreak, and the government responsibility are no less because these deaths are occurring one by one, community by community across America. This legislation is literally a matter of life and death. It is time to set things right and assure the public the kind of vigorous federal action which will be measured in crashes avoided and deaths prevented. Your constituents are expecting leadership from their elected officials to tackle this problem. We urge you to fulfill this obligation. Sincerely, Judith L. Stone, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Washington, DC. Andrew McGuire, Executive Director, Trauma Foundation, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA. Joan Claybrook, President, Public Citizen, Washington, DC. Daphne Izer, Parents Against Tired Truckers, Lisbon Falls,