Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, February 21, 1999, under the leadership of the Superintendent of State Police, Colonel M. Wayne Huggins, a task force of 110 Virginia state troopers, supervisors and aviation units conducted an eight-hour enforcement initiative along the full 325-mile length of Interstate 81 in Virginia to control speeders and improve highway safety for all the people who use this heavily trafficked roadway. The program was coordinated and implemented by Lt. Colonel W.G. Massengale and Major J.B. Scott with assistance of Captain J.R. Quinley (Culpeper), Captain H.G. Gregory (Appomattox), Captain C.R. Compton (Salem) and Captain W.K. Paul (Wytheville). As a result of the dedicated performance of the Virginia State Police under their most able leadership, a huge stride toward traffic safety on Interstate 81 was made on February 21. This crackdown resulted in 1,730 tickets being issued to violators. Speed is a major cause of traffic accidents and the resultant deaths and injuries. These troopers and their commanders saved lives on the highway that Sunday and sent the message that Virginia is serious about protecting its people.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, on March 19, 1999, Henry E. Hudson was sworn to a bench in Fairfax County Circuit Court during an investiture ceremony. He was assisted in the enrobing by his son, Kevin. Judge Hudson brings a lifetime of wisdom and legal experience to his new task. He has previously served in Virginia as a deputy sheriff, assistant commonwealth's attorney, commonwealth's attorney, assistant U.S. attorney, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and as director of the U.S. Marshals Service. He also practiced law in the private sector for a number of years and served on important federal and state boards and commissions. A lifelong Virginian and member of the Arlington County Volunteer Fire Department, Judge Hudson continues a proud tradition of service to the people and respect for the rule of law. The judge, his wife, Tara, and their son Kevin make their home in northern Virginia. We in Virginia and in America are fortunate to have people of Judge Hudson's capabilities serving on the bench.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with our colleagues a recent editorial from The Winchester Star which so eloquently speaks about a true ``citizen-legislator,'' Raymond R. ``Andy'' Guest of Front Royal, who has announced his retirement as a delegate in the Virginia General Assembly, where he served for nearly three decades. I am proud to call Andy Guest my constituent and friend, and am grateful to have had the opportunity to work with him in public service to so many of the constituents we share from the Shenandoah Valley. On behalf of those people of the Valley, I wish Andy and His wife, Mary Scott, all the best wherever his path now as ``citizen'' leads. [From The Winchester Star, March 2, 1999] Virginia Gentleman--Guest Personified Legislative Tradition It comes as no small surprise that when the time came for Raymond R. ``Andy'' Guest Jr. to announce his retirement from the General Assembly he was ``overwhelmed'' by ``the history, the tradition'' that surrounds anyone in Virginia's State Capitol. But then, Andy Guest is not ``anyone''; 28 years a man of the House, he was emblematic of that tradition the Old Dominion so admires in her lawmakers, that of ``citizen- legislator.'' ``To continue that tradition was a great honor.'' Mr. Guest said Sunday, roughly 24 hours after announcing his intention to leave the House, and the people, he served for nearly three decades. However, the tradition to which he stood heir goes deeper than ties to Virginia. In a real sense, he was to the manner born; his father, Raymond Sr., also served in the General Assembly and was U.S. ambassador to Ireland. Thus, as his wife, Mary Scott, succinctly said. ``He was born to be a public servant.'' And, as a public servant, he will be dearly missed, by his peers no less than his constituents. Among the men and women with whom he engaged in the legislative hurly-burly he will be remembered as the gentleman he is. ``Sometimes we use the word . . . a little too freely,'' said House Speaker Thomas W. Moss, D-Norfolk, with whom Guest often tangled, ``but I've never known him to be anything but a gentleman.'' Likewise, said state Sen. H. Russell Potts Jr., R- Winchester: ``We have lost a good man. His integrity and character exude the class that typifies a Virginia gentleman. He leaves a void that will never be replaced.'' That ``void'' is considerable, in that Mr. Guest's voice was one of clear common sense and consistent conservatism, particularly of the fiscal variety. In his last session, he raised words of concern about the manner in which the state treats its surplus revenue (see editorial above). He is worried, as are we, that these dollars will be used to ``grow the government,'' rather than as a tool to fund needed capital expenditures. Such a concern was true to form. As a minority member of the legislature for most all his 28 years in the House--he was minority leader for six of them--Mr. Guest often found himself ``chipping away'' at the system in hopes that it would run better. Frequently, this took the form of legislation that bore witness to the needs of his constituents in the northern Valley. He relished in his efforts to make the bureaucracy respond to these needs and to ``see things get done.'' To be sure, Mr. Guest also will be remembered for his courage in combating lymphatic cancer while maintaining a watchful eye on the General Assembly's proceedings from his Richmond hospital bed. Thankfully, he says his decision to leave the House is not health-related, but simply predicated by a desire to attend to family and business interests and to, as they say, ``smell the roses'' a bit, perhaps while dove hunting and fly fishing, two particular loves. His wife, Mary Scott, says that having Andy at home on more or less a regular basis will translate into more opportunities to enjoy the company of friends, sans the demands that politics brings. ``I'll be able to say . . . `Let's have dinner on Friday or Saturday night and we won't have to talk politics,' '' Mrs. Guest said. Without a doubt, she knows her man far better than we, but we suspect that politics will never stray too far from the mind of Andy Guest. Citizen-legislators may retire, but when ``tradition'' is born in the blood, the passion seldom expires. Nor does the legacy, which, in this case, is considerable.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I was in Kosovo 2 weeks ago. It was my second trip there since 1995. I rise in support of the resolution. I will stipulate the administration has not done a good job on educating and conferring with the Congress, nor has it done a good job of telling the American people what the mission is. However, if there is an agreement in France, I support the deployment of American troops because I believe without U.S. participation it will not work. I spoke to one person over there. I said, ``How many American soldiers do you need?'' He said, ``At least one, and he has to be out in front because without America's involvement it will not take place.'' Two hundred thousand people died in Bosnia. Were it not for the Sarajevo market slaughter, we would not have gotten involved then, and since our participation nobody has died and it is working. This is the 50th anniversary of NATO. NATO leaders from all the world will come here to celebrate the working of NATO, and how can they celebrate the working of NATO if NATO forces go into Kosovo if there is an agreement and the Americans do not participate in it? George Will wrote in Newsweek where he said: If NATO cannot stop massacres in the center of Europe, it cannot long continue as an instrument of collective security against Wye. Given how well things have gone in the last 50 years on the continent, wherein the preceding 35 years things went wrong at such cost in American blood and treasure, do Americans want the risk, arising tide of anarchy? It is important, if there is going to be a NATO, and what we are voting on today is not only troops with regard to Kosovo if there is an agreement, we are in essence today, whether we like it or not, voting on the vitality and the future of NATO. In closing, if there is a lasting peace though in this region, it is important that we do everything we can to see that President Milosevic is removed from power. A just and permanent way for him to step down must be found. The longer he remains, the longer the turmoil and unrest and killing will continue in Eastern Europe. It is not an easy vote, but in the Bible in Luke it says to whom much is given much is expected, and in one verse it says to whom much is given much is required. We have been blessed in this country with peace and prosperity. NATO has been a success, NATO has worked, NATO is important, and with the 50th anniversary coming up to say that NATO will participate in Kosovo if there is an agreement, and I stipulate, but the United States will not participate, will basically be the first nail in the coffin in the death of NATO. So with great reluctance stipulating the administration has not treated our troops fairly with regard to benefits and pay and they have been weakened, and also they have not made the case, I support the resolution. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 42, a resolution authorizing the deployment of U.S. troops to Kosovo. I support the resolution, although imperfect, in its current form. I do so reluctantly. I do not believe President Clinton has made a credible case to the American people or to the Congress about the need for this deployment. I urge him to do so and do so quickly. We will, after all, be sending America's young men and women into harm's way and the people deserve to know ``why.'' Two weeks ago I visited Kosovo to get a first-hand glimpse into the current conflict. I met with representatives of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA/UCK), Serb government officials, NGO representatives and U.S. Ambassador William Walker, the head of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) mission in Pristina. I also had the chance to talk to members of the KLA army, many of them everyday people, farmers, storekeepers, workers and such who were driven to the KLA by the constant, brutal action of the Serbs. I am submitting a copy of my trip report for the Congressional Record. It contains my observations and recommendations regarding the Kosovo conflict. I have concluded that if there is a signed peace agreement in Rambouillet, it will be necessary to commit troops to the Kosovo peace effort. It is only with the greatest reluctance that I support the deployment of American troops abroad, but I believe that without U.S. troops, peacekeeping won't work. The U.S. is both the leader of the world and of NATO. If NATO is involved, we must be part of the effort or it will not succeed. This year is the 50th anniversary of NATO. The anniversary will be celebrated with events in Washington and elsewhere in the United States. Kosovo will be a big test for this important alliance. The U.S. has always been the leader of NATO and we should not shy away from our commitment now. If we refuse to become part of the NATO effort in Kosovo, it could only further embolden Serb President Slobodan Milosevic and dim the prospects for reaching a lasting, peaceful settlement. The fighting will continue and more people, including many women and children, will lose their lives. I agree with the words of Bob Kagan in the Weekly Standard of March 1, 1999. He says the practical effect of opposing U.S. involvement ``would be to reinforce Milosevic's conviction that NATO, and particularly the United States, does not have the stomach to take him on.'' George Will wrote in Newsweek on March 1, ``. . . if NATO cannot stop massacres in the center of Europe, it cannot long continue as an instrument of collective security against . . . what? Given how well things have gone in the last 50 years on the continent where in the preceding 35 years things went so wrong, at such cost in American blood and treasure, do Americans want to risk a rising tide of anarchy?'' I agree with this thoughts. However, I do not believe the Clinton administration has made a credible case for U.S. involvement in Kosovo to the American people nor do I believe that this administration has done a good job taking care of our men and women in uniform who, at personal risk, have been carrying out our policy in Bosnia, in Iraq, in Haiti, in South Korea, on our high seas and ``wherever the U.S.'' needs its strength. We have drawndown troops to a level now insufficient to meet today's needs. Many troops go from one deployment to another without time to be home with their families. U.S. troops are stretched too thin and are not being treated fairly. Pay and allowances are inadequate, the tempo of operations is too high (we just need a larger military force to face the tasks they have been given) and we are not giving our first class military men and women the tools they need to do the job. I want to emphasize that there are no better soldiers anywhere in the world and the morale of our troops is high. But they are not being treated fairly. If the troops are to be deployed to Kosovo, we must give them strong political leadership and a clear mission. We also must be sure that Americans soldiers, airmen, seamen and marines are given the resources they need to carry out their ever increasing number of missions around the world. It's not enough to pass a resolution. Congress must ensure that the resources available for the American military are there for them to carry out the growing number of missions the military is being called upon to carry out. We also must do more than we have done in Bosnia to build a lasting peace. While our military effort in Bosnia has been successful, thanks to the commitment and skill of American troops, the civilian side of the effort has fallen far short. We have failed so far to bring about reconciliation among the ethnic factions. An interdependent society enhanced by an effective marketplace and economic trade system has not gotten off the ground. For example, three years after the Dayton accord, the railroad in Bosnia does not yet operate. We must learn lessons from Bosnia and help create a working regional government in Kosovo that effectively represents and is accountable to the people and contributes to the creation of a viable economy. We also must ensure that a new Kosovo government has effective civilian oversight over the military and that KLA forces are disarmed and brought under civilian command. Without strong civilian control, the KLA could get out of hand. Most importantly, lasting peace may not occur in the Balkans while Serbian President Slobodan Milesovic is in power. A just and permanent way for him to step down must be found. The longer he remains, the longer turmoil, unrest and killing will continue in eastern Europe. It is never an easy decision for a Member of Congress to decide to vote in favor of sending American men and women into a possibly dangerous situation. I believe, however, that once a peace agreement is reached--if it is reached--deploying NATO troops to the region to keep the peace, prevent the conflict from spreading and prevent destabilizing refugee outflows into neighboring countries is the only way to ensure stability in Europe. Stability in Europe is in the best interest of the United States. Statement by U.S. Representative Frank R. Wolf, Report of a Visit to the Balkans Kosovo: The Latest Balkan Hot Spot, February 13-18, 1999 This report provides details of my trip to Albania, Macedona and Kosovo during mid-February, 1999. This visit occurred during the time the Serb-Kosovo Albanian peace conference was taking place in Rambouillet, France, and ended only a few days before the contact group's initially imposed deadline to reach agreement of February 20. There is every indication that the U.S. will be concerned with Kosovo for some time to come and it was important to have a clear, first-hand view of conditions there. I have, for many years, had a deep interest in the Balkans and concern for the people who live there. I have traveled numerous times to the region. There has been hostility, unrest and turmoil for hundreds of years. It has been said that there is too much history for these small countries to bear. If this is so, it has never been more true than today. During this trip, I spent one day in Tirana, Albania, where I met with the U.S. Ambassador Marissa Lino and her embassy staff; Albanian President Meidani; Prime Minister Majko; cabinet ministers; the Speaker and other members of parliament; religious leaders, and heads of Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) active there. I spent parts of two days in Skopje, Macedonia, where I met with embassy Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge d'affaires Paul Jones; Political Officer Charles Stonecipher; members of the Macedonian parliament; former Prime Minister and President of the Social Democratic Union (opposition political party) Branko Crvenkovski; American soliders assigned to United Nations forces guarding the Macedonia- Kosovo border, and the commander and men of the NATO Kosovo verification and extraction forces as well as representatives of NGOs in Macedonia. In Kosovo for a day and a half, I met with head of mission Ambassador William Walker and senior adviser to ethnic Albanian elected President Ibrahim Rugova, Professor Alush Gashi. I also met with Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA/UCK) spokesman Adem Demaci (who previously spent 26 years in Serb prisons) and senior Serbian representative in Kosovo, Zoran Andelkovic. Other meetings included NGO representatives, head of the Kosovo office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and other officials and representatives. Our understanding and most able escort was State Department Foreign Service Officer Ronald Capps. We also stopped at a Serb police barracks and met with the officer in charge. We met individual members of the KLA and with a number of individual Kosovars who had returned to their villages after having been driven out by Serb attacks. Some villages were largely destroyed and remain mostly deserted. The fate of Albania, Macedonia and Kosovo, which border one another, is interrelated. Albania has a population of about two million people. Macedonia's population of two million includes about one third ethnic Albanian. About 90 percent of the nearly two million people in Kosovo are also ethnic Albanian. Kosovo is the southernmost province of present-day Serbia and has a centuries long history of conflict, turbulence and hatred. By 1987 Serbian dominance in the region had been established, Slobodan Milosevic was President and ethnic Albanian participation in government was virtually nonexistent. In response, ethnic Albanians in 1991 formed a shadow government complete with president, parliament, tax system and schools. Ibrahim Rugova was elected president and has since worked for Kosovo independence through peaceful means. By the mid-1990, the ethnic Albanian population in Kosovo had grown to nearly 90 percent as human rights conditions continued to go down hill with the Serbs in total control of police and the army. Many, if not most, individual Serbs also have weapons as opposed to ethnic Albanians for whom possessing a gun is against strictly enforced law. Beatings, harassment and brutality toward ethnic Albanians became commonplace, particularly in villages and smaller towns. In 1996 the shadowy, separatist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) surfaced for the first time, claiming responsibility for bombings in southern Yugoslavia. KLA efforts intensified over the next several years, government officials and alleged ethnic Albanian collaborators were killed. The Serbian government cracked down and violence has escalated since. I met with a number of KLA members. Most of them are everyday people, farmers, storekeepers, workers and such who were driven to the KLA by the constant brutal action of the Serbs. There are, no doubt, some bad people in the KLA including thugs, gangsters and smugglers, but most are motivated by a hunger for independence. Still, it must be recognized that some acts of terrorism have been committed by the KLA. Conditions in Kosovo continued to deteriorate and alarm the international community. In October 1998, under threat of NATO air strikes, Serbian President Milosevic made commitments to implement terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1199 to end violence in Kosovo, partially withdraw Serbian forces, open access to humanitarian relief organizations (NGOs), cooperate with war crimes investigators and progress toward a political settlement. As part of this commitment, in order to verify compliance, President Milosevic agreed to an on-scene verification mission by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and NATO surveillance of Kosovo by non- combatant aircraft. These activities are in progress and NATO has deployed a small extraction force in next door Macedonia. I visited with each of these groups. However, conditions in Kosovo have not stabilized and more have been killed. Finally, a contact group with members from the U.S., Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy and Germany issued an ultimatum to the sides to reach a peace accord by February 20, 1999. NATO air strikes against targets in Serbia were threatened if Belgrade did not comply. The Serbs consider Kosovo the cradle of their culture and their orthodox religion and are not willing to give it up. I visited the Field of Blackbirds where the Serbs battled for and lost control of the region in 1389. I also visited a Monastery dating back to 1535 that is an important part of Serb history. The Clinton administration, which does not favor independence for Kosovo, worries this conflict could spread if NATO does not intervene and could even involve Turkey, Bulgaria, Albania and Greece. While this is of concern, there are other reasons for the U.S. to remain active. The U.S. can never stand by and allow genocide to take place. Part of the effort, once a peace agreement between the Serbs and ethnic Albanians has been signed, could include a NATO ground force in Kosovo containing a contingent of U.S. troops. It is clear that a main pipeline for arms reaching ethnic Albanians in Kosovo is across the Albania-Kosovo border and any stabilization effort will likely include shutting off this arms route. It has been suggested that an effective arms blockade could be accomplished by the Italian government from the Albanian side of the border with Kosovo. A number of issues must be addressed before the outcome of this conflict can be predicted. Principal among these is the likely strength and stability of an ethnic Albanian led Kosovo government. Another is the economic potential of a stand-alone Kosovo, free from Serbia. Also important is what will be the future of the KLA? Will they give up their arms? Many in the KLA say ``no''. Could an independent Kosovo make it on its own? Political ability has not been demonstrated. Economic development help from the private sector in the West may not be immediately forthcoming. How would they be propped up? How will long term cross border hatred between Serbs and ethnic Albanians be kept in check? Who is going to foot the bill for all this? European nations? How and by whom will the issue of war crimes be addressed? A terrible job on this issue has been done in Bosnia. Known war criminals have not been pursued after more than three years. Reconciliation is an important ingredient to lasting peace but terrible acts have been committed and justice must be served. The principal perpetrator of injustice and brutality has been Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic. What about him? The White House and the present administration are deserving of some sharp criticism for allowing conditions to get where they are today. There appear to be few lessons this administration has learned from the painful experience of Bosnia. Our government waited too long to get involved and, once engaged, has been somewhat ineffective. Too many died in Bosnia during this delay. While committing troops to the region for one year (now over three years with no end in sight) has indeed halted killing, at least temporarily, Bosnia is no further along toward peaceful self sufficiency than when troops arrive. Rather, it is as though there is merely a pause in time. If our troops leave, hostility and brutality would likely resume. Little infrastructure is being created. Railroads are not running. Little economic development or growth is emerging. No lasting plan for peace has been developed and no interdependent community has been created which would make undesirable, a return to conflict. Little has been done to bring about reconciliation. Meanwhile, as we look at our overall U.S. military capabilities throughout the world, we see that this administration has drawn down U.S. military strength to the level where there are now insufficient forces to meet today's needs. When I met with our soldiers in the Balkan region I found many who have gone from one deployment to another without time to be home with their families. The troopers I met on the Kosovo border are assigned to a battalion on its third deployment in three years. There are no better soldiers anywhere in the world than these and their morale is high. They are ready to do what is expected of them and more. But they are not being treated fairly. Pay and benefits have been allowed to deteriorate. The tempo of operations has grown to the point where they have too little time at home. There are just not sufficient forces to do all the things they are expected to do. According to the February 17, Washington Post, the Secretary of the Army's answer is to lower standards and recruit high school drop-outs. Turning his back on history, this official has unwisely decided upon another social experiment rather than dealing fairly with the shortfall. From 1990 to 1998 the armed forces went from 18 active army divisions to eight. The navy battle force went from 546 ships to 346. Air force fighter wings decreased from 36 to 30. Discretionary defense budget outlays will decrease 31 percent in the ten years beginning 1990. Service chiefs predict FY 1999 ammunition shortages for the army of $1.7B and $193M for the marines. These statistics are just the tip of the iceberg. There is compelling evidence that, in the face of a huge increase in troop deployments (26 group deployments between 1991 and 1998 by the Army's own count), this administration has not made the investment to give our fighting men and women the tools to do the job asked of them. The fact that the men and women in uniform are bending to their task is to their credit, but it is past time to give them what they need and stop driving them into the ground. The White House must face up to this shortfall and address the issue of where the money to pay for our involvement is to come from. They have not yet done so and time is short. A strong NATO involvement, with solid U.S. participation, will be an important part of any workable solution to this mess. There is a story making the rounds of NATO forces where an American general, about to depart the region asks his NATO counterpart how many U.S. troops must remain to ensure safety and success of the mission. The NATO commander responds, ``Only one, but he must be at the very front''. This is only a story told in good humor but it makes the point that U.S. presence is key--perhaps vital. It is not without irony that the one key player omitted from the contact group meetings in France is a NATO representative. The irony deepens when the presence on the contact group of chronic problem-makes Russia and France is noted. Frankly, the U.S. Congress has also had too little involvement in this Balkan process. The administration has done and continues to do a poor job in dealing with these issues. Consultation with the Congress does not appear to have been a major concern to the White House. While foreign policy is largely the prerogative of the President, American lives are being placed at risk in a far-off land and untold dollars are being committed to this effort. Congress has a role and must participate in this debate. Congressional hearings to explore all aspects of this situation are in order. conclusions and recommendations: 1. If there is a signed peace agreement in Rambouillet, it could be necessary to commit U.S. troops to the Kosovo peace effort. I make this recommendation with reluctance but, without U.S. troops, peacekeeping won't work. The U.S. is both the leader of the world and of NATO. If NATO is involved, we must be a part of the effort or it will fail. NATO's 50th anniversary is later this spring and there will be a large celebration in the U.S. Kosovo will be a big test for this important alliance. 2. There are many differences between the situation existing several years ago in Bosnia and what is happening today in Kosovo. Still, thousands died in Bosnia including too many women and children before NATO troops including a large contingent of U.S. soldiers moved in and put an end to the killing. Had not NATO peacekeepers acted over three years ago, the killing might still be going on today. Without the commitment of U.S. troops, a NATO peacekeeping intervention might not even have been attempted. We may wish this were not so, but it is. Perhaps things can change in the future but this is today's reality. 3. U.S. troops are stretched too thin and are not being treated fairly. Pay and allowances are inadequate, the tempo of operations is far too high (we just need a larger military force to face the tasks they have been given) and we are not giving our first class military men and women the tools they need to do the job. The administration needs to take better care of our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. Congress should force this issue. 4. Special attention must be paid to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). While many, perhaps most, are common people whose interest is defending their families, their homes and themselves, the army is not without a rogue element. There is no clearly established and proven civilian government and there is no line of authority/responsibility between the KLA and a representative government. Without control, the KLA could get out of hand. 5. When peacekeepers arrive in Kosovo, one of their first tasks must be to disarm the KLA. Many in the KLA have said they will not give up their weapons. An armed KLA will be a time bomb in the way of progress toward peace. Providing safeguards for Serbs in Kosovo is an important part of the peace process. 6. Efforts thus far to build a lasting peace in Bosnia have come up short. Not only must more be done there but the lessons learned must be applied to Kosovo. The military presence in Bosnia has done the job of ending killing and brutality as it likely will in Kosovo, but the peace-building effort of reconciliation and creating an interdependent society and effective marketplace and economic trade system has not gotten off the ground. 7. Lasting peace in the Balkans will not occur while Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic is in power. A just and permanent way for him to step down must be found. The longer he remains, the longer turmoil, unrest and killing will continue in eastern Europe. 8. American and other workers and officials of all nations present in Kosovo (diplomats, United Nations, NGOs, contract workers, humanitarian care-givers and others) are true heros. They risk their lives daily to make life a little better for the people in Kosovo and we should all pray for them. I happened to see a warning sign posted in a U.N. office talking about mines. In part, it said, ``There is strong evidence to suggest some police posts have had anti-personnel mines placed near them. . . . All staff are asked to be extremely cautious when in the vicinity . . .'' Yet these men and women go about their daily duties with dedication and care for others in spite of the harm that is just a step away. 9. The foreign policy of this administration continues to come up short and is deserving of sharp criticism. America is the one remaining superpower and, like it or not, must assume this responsibility. Unfolding events continue to point to the absence of a coherent idea of what to do and how to do it. While we should have already developed a peace-making strategy and an exit strategy, the participants at Rambouillet remain unable to even get things started. 10. President Clinton has done a poor job of making the case to the American people for U.S. involvement in this conflict which also has a significant moral aspect to it. While the U.S. cannot be involved all over the world, we are a member of NATO which deals with peace and stability in Europe. Kosovo is a part of Europe and its destabilization could create a huge refugee population there. Fighting could even break out elsewhere if this issue is not dealt with early and effectively. America has been blessed with peace and prosperity. In the Bible, it says that to whom much is given, much is expected and there is an obligation on our part to be a participant in the search for solutions in this troubled spot. 11. I would like to conclude on a personal note to thank all of those who assisted me on this mission. I am especially grateful to U.S. Ambassador Marisa Lino and her staff, foreign service officer Charles Stonecipher who assisted me in Macedonia, foreign service officer Ron Capps whose knowledge and concern was of great help in Kosovo and U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Mike Prendergast who traveled with me. I appreciate their invaluable assistance.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the Members of the House today the following Philadelphia Inquirer headline where it says gambling efforts die in Pennsylvania Senate. This Monday, the Pennsylvania State Senate rejected a resolution by the vote of 28 to 21 calling for three statewide gambling referendums. Gambling was rejected despite the gambling lobby's political campaign contribution of $606,000. This is a very large amount of money for a State with no gambling except for horse racing and State lotteries. Madam Speaker, people got involved at the grass roots level. The people learned the truth about how gambling is bad for families and communities, especially the poor and the Nation's youth. Also, the newspapers had the courage to speak out about how gambling brings crime, and corruption, and cannibalizes local businesses and breaks up families. What took place in Pennsylvania should give great hope to any community that if it wants to eradicate and remove gambling or keep it out, it can do it. I congratulate the Pennsylvania State Senate for its actions on Monday. [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Mar. 8, 1999] Gambling Contributions gambling interests have donated generously to Ridge, legislative leaders Harrisburg.--Gov. Tom Ridge and legislative leaders have accepted at least $606,000 in contributions from gambling interests and their lobbyists in recent years, according to a report published Monday. Ridge received about $240,000 from gambling interests, including lobbyists, since he began raising money for his 1995 campaign. Legislative leaders and their committees took in $366,100, according to the analysis by The Philadelphia Inquirer. Lawmakers and lobbyists rejected the notion of any link between campaign money and legislative action. Further, they said the gambling interests have been relatively restrained in their giving, compared with what has taken place in other states. ``I don't think the industry really felt that (large contributions) was the approach they wanted to take,'' said Obra S. Kernodle 3d, a lawyer-lobbyist who is a principal in a Philadelphia company that wants to build a riverboat casino. ``I can't see a relationship between the contributions and a vote on any issue--especially this issue,'' said Senate Minority Leader Robert J. Mellow, D-Lackawanna. Anti-gambling activists say the contributions are unseemly and that the money at least helped push gambling to the top of the 1999 legislative agenda. Gambling legislation ``is being passed on a cash and carry basis,'' said Tom Grey, a national antigambling activist who has been involved in efforts to defeat the referendum bill. ``Legalized gambling gives (lawmakers) the cash, and they carry the bill.'' ``Special interests, through campaign contributions and hiring every lobbyist in town, are driving the system with the pedal to the metal,'' said Barry Kauffmann, executive director of Pennsylvania Common Cause. ``It's an increasingly troubling part of the way the process is being run.'' The referendum bill, which the House approved last month, would let voters state their opinions about three potential expansions of legalized gambling: riverboat casinos, video poker in bars and slot machines at four horse tracks. Lawmakers then must shape legislation to legalize any new games. Ridge has said he would sign the bill, but also says he will demand that any actual expansion of gambling would have to be approved, project by project, in subsequent local referendums. It is impossible to determine how much gambling interest spend on lobbying, because current disclosure laws provide no meaningful information. A tough new disclosure law takes effect in June. Among the campaign-finance reports examined by The Inquirer were those listing contributions during the two election cycles to Ridge, the Republican and Democratic leaders in both houses, House and Senate campaign committees controlled by the leaders, and funds maintained by the Republican and Democratic state committees. Most of the gaming-related contributions to Harrisburg leaders in recent years, about $438,000, came from the horse- racing industry and its lobbyist, records show. And most of that came from four lobbying firms with horse- racing clients--Pugliese Associates, Greenlee Associates, S.R. Wojdak & Associates and the law firm of Buchanan Ingersoll--that contributed a total of $311,000 to the governor and top lawmakers, records show. Riverboat-gaming advocates gave about $85,000; casino companies donated a total of $58,000; and video-poker interests gave about $25,000, The Inquirer reported.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 28, a resolution urging the United States to cosponsor a resolution condemning China's human rights record at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I commend Chairman Gilman for introducing this resolution and moving it through the committee so quickly. A similar resolution passed the Senate by a vote of 99-0. That should set an example for this body. I hope H. Con. Res. 28 will pass the House unanimously today. The United Nations Human Rights Commission is the forum within the United Nations system established for the express purpose of examining and voicing concern about the human rights practices of member countries. Its resolutions are not binding in any way, but they do have the effect of raising awareness and holding countries accountable to their international human rights commitments. China, as a member of the United Nations, has agreed to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. It has also signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty-like document which obliges it to uphold certain basic freedoms of its citizens. Among these are the freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom from torture; freedom of expression; freedom of peaceful assembly, and the right to fair and speedy trial. It agreed to sign this covenant last year at this time and doing so enabled China to avoid criticism at the 1998 Commission. The Clinton administration cited China's willingness to sign the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as the reason why it did not go forward with a resolution in 1998. Mr. Speaker, this year there is no excuse. China's human rights record is as bad as ever. Since July 1998, the Chinese government has arrested over 100 prominent democracy activists, giving many long prison sentences in unfair trials. Their crime was expressing their views--acting on their conscience. An intense crackdown earlier this year coincided with the start of talks between U.S. and Chinese officials in a so-called--and much touted--``human rights dialogue.'' The crackdown was a message--we are willing to talk about human rights but we know we don't have to take any action. Thousands of political prisoners remain in jail. Religious believers in China have continued to suffer persecution. Catholic bishops and priests continue to be jailed and tortured. The Vatican reported earlier this year that Chinese authorities tortured a 31-year-old priest by subjecting him to physical and psychological pressure. They brought in prostitutes to tempt him and then video-taped his ordeal as a way to break his spirit. Protestant house church leaders are on the run, fearful for their lives and freedom. Reports indicate that almost all the leaders of China's largest house churches--the name given to the vast network of underground churches--are forced to move from place to place to avoid arrest. Though persecution of house churches varies from region to region, it is Chinese government policy to crack down on China's underground churches. A number of documents smuggled out of China in recent years have revealed the local communist party's plans to eradicate the underground church. For example, such a document revealed last year that in July 1998, municipal authorities in Hua Shen complained to their superiors about the activities of an ``illegal missionary'' whose preaching has begun to attract more and more followers. ``He has been arrested and educated many times, and yet his heart has not died and his nature has not changed'' party officials report. His religious gatherings draw people from neighboring towns--sometimes as many as 1,000 at a time--and has ``become the largest illegal religious group * * * It has created an interference effect,'' the report says. It calls on all local municipal units to coordinate their activities in order to ``effectively crack down illegal religious activities and create favorable conditions for the stability and development of our town.'' That is not religious freedom, Mr. Speaker. This is religious persecution. In Tibet where the Buddhist religion is a deep part of the culture, the communist party has begun a campaign to encourage Tibetan Buddhists to become atheists. This is only the latest anti-religion campaign waged by the PRC against the Tibetan Buddhists. The Chinese Government has closed monasteries and nunneries and expelled monks and nuns. Since 1996, some 9,977 monks and nuns have been expelled from their monasteries--7,000 in 1998 alone. A reported 492 monks and nuns have been arrested since May, 1996--135 in 1998. Of these, 13 died in prison from torture. Many others were released just before they died. Torture is rampant in Tibetan prisons. Hundreds of Tibetans continue to flee across the treacherous Himalayan Mountains to reach freedom in Nepal and India. Some even send their children-- fearing there is no future left for them in Tibet. Amnesty International reported that a group of young Uighurs were sentenced to death recently on political charges. Uighurs are Muslim people living in the Northwest province of Xinjiang. They have reported severe persecution, the closing of mosques, and overall discrimination against their population by the Chinese Government. It has also been reported that Chinese nuclear weapons are tested in areas populated by Uighurs--leading to birth defects and other problems. But, Mr. Speaker, despite all these facts, the Clinton administration sits on their hands when it comes to exerting multi-lateral diplomatic effort to end China's human rights abuses. We dilly-dally and postpone our decision about sponsoring a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission, making it almost inevitable that any such resolution will be defeated. China is not sitting on its hands. It is probably already lobbying its friends hard against such a resolution. Human Rights Watch documented China's efforts to defeat a resolution in 1997--by dangling millions of dollars worth of contracts in front of governments willing to vote with them. But the Clinton administration is not even willing to exert diplomatic leadership to generate support for a resolution of condemnation. This is not leadership and it does illustrate a commitment to human rights on the part of U.S. Government. We talk tough, then appease the PRC. We look the other way while China steals American technology to enhance its military capability and then appease the PRC by giving Chinese leaders state and high-level visits to the United States. We say we care about human rights, but we don't use multi-lateral frameworks to advance them. Our policy is a failure. I hope my colleagues will support H. Con. Res. 28 and I hope the administration will not let China off the hook in Geneva.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. The presidential election scheduled for June is the first election for President since President Suharto stepped down last year. This is an opportunity for Indonesia to move into a new era of stability and prosperity. Indonesia has been wracked by economic crisis. The international community wants to help the Indonesian people recover from their current economic difficulties. Indonesia has been, and should continue to be, an important regional ally for the United States. However, Indonesia's international reputation has been tarnished by the Suharto government's brutal occupation of East Timor, the grave human rights abuses committed by the Indonesian military in East Timor and in Indonesia, its lack of respect for democracy and the corrupt cronyism that enabled the economy to grow but disenfranchised large portions of the population. Thousands of brave Indonesians took the streets last year calling for an end to the Buharto regime and the beginning of truly democratic political system which allowed for multi-party participation. They were tired of President Suharto's administration and its corruption. They demanded free and fair elections. They deserve to have them. It is their right to have them. This is an opportunity for Indonesia to follow the way of Taiwan, South Korea, and the Philippines, Asian countries who have successfully transformed themselves into pluralistic, multi-party democracies. President Habibie has every incentive to make the June elections as free and as fair as international standards dictate. If he does so and continues to take steps to resolve the crisis in East Timor in a manner that respects the wishes and views of the people of East Timor, Indonesia's reputation will be enhanced and the international community will have great incentive to embrace the new government. There are many good benefits that can come from this--both for the Indonesian government and for the Indonesian people. The key is in the hands of the Habibie government. By the manner in which they conduct the June elections, they hold the key to the future stability and prosperity of Indonesia. I commend Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Lantos for sponsoring this resolution. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on the issue of Sudan. But, before I do, I want to just pay tribute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for taking his time and getting involved in a very important issue with regard to slavery in Sudan. I also want to congratulate the students at Highline Community School in Aurora, Colorado. They have done an amazing thing with regard to getting people who were in slavery in southern Sudan free. Mr. Speaker, I have been in Sudan on three different occasions. The world does not know it, but these students in Colorado know it. There is slavery going on in Sudan, and these students are making a tremendous effort. Because of them, 1,000 slaves have been released, and I just want to take out this special order in tribute to them. Mr. Speaker, for the past several months, the students of Barbara Vogel's fourth grade class have been raising money to help free slave children as part of the public awareness campaign called S.T.O.P., Slavery That Oppresses People. These young people, modern-day abolitionists, are an inspiration to many. If my colleagues saw the CBS Dan Rather show, one of the youngsters I believe called himself a modern-day abolitionist. If only the Congress could follow their lead or if the administration could follow their lead. Almost 2 million people have died, 2 million have died in Sudan in the past 15 years. More have died in Sudan than have died in Somalia, in Kosovo, in Rwanda and in Bosnia combined. The most recent statistics available put the number dead at 1.8 million, but that does not cover the 200,000 who have died from the famines this past summer. Mr. Speaker, millions of people are starving in southern Sudan, kept alive only by the brave efforts of international humanitarian organizations like World Vision, Save the Children, Catholic Relief, UNICEF, and others. Millions are being displaced. An entire generation has been lost, and another generation is ready to be lost. The word ``genocide'' is now used with regard to what is taking place in Sudan. In the Numba Mountains, the Christians and Muslims are being persecuted. The Sudanese government are persecuting these people because of their faith. The government planes use high-altitude bombings to demolish civilian targets like hospitals and terrorize the population. We know that women and children from Southern Sudan are being sold into slavery; and today, March 2, 1999, Sudanese women and children are being bought and sold as we sit and stand here today. They are kidnapped by slave raiders who sweep into the destabilized regions following the government attacks. They capture the women and children and then they take them off for slavery. I want to commend my colleagues' attention to this excellent booklet which hopefully will be sent to every Congressional office from the U.S. Committee For Refugees. Tomorrow they will announce a nationwide public awareness campaign about Sudan. I urge the Members of this body to get a copy of this booklet. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for his coming here quickly, getting started on a very powerful, very important issue. This may be the major human rights issue of the world. Two million people have died. Also, the students of Highline School are trying to help to save one life at a time by raising money to free women and children from the trading block. Last week, Mr. Speaker, I received letters from the youngsters which I would like to put in the Congressional Record. Nicole Limino said to me, ``Dear Congressman Wolf, it makes me feel so sad that people just like me are being treated like animals. This needs to be stopped. Someone needs to take a stand. Please help eradicate slavery by writing the government and telling them something needs to be done.'' Doni Tarplus said, ``Will you please help us abolish slavery? The President isn't helping even when he promised to make the world a better place.'' A boy who identified himself as Melvin said, ``I'm Melvin. I'm demanding you ask people if they want to help. The United Nations isn't doing anything about slavery in Sudan. I was broken-hearted when I found that 409 people were found and brought from slavery.'' David Walker said, ``You are a congressman so you can help. Millions of lives are in danger and you can get the government to help. Slavery is going on and we need to stop it.'' Then there are many other letters which I would like to put in the Congressional Record. In closing, slavery is a problem. Starvation is a problem. The United States can do more to help. We can appoint a special envoy. He can go back and tell the students from Highline Community School that the Clinton administration has a special envoy. They appointed an envoy, Senator Mitchell, who deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing people together in Ireland, Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland. Let us appoint a Sam Nunn, a Senator Nunn to be the special envoy to bring peace in this region and stop the slavery, stop the suffering, stop the agony and the pain. The students from the area of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), from Highline Community School, are, frankly, I hate to say this, they are doing more than the Congress is doing, both parties, Republican and Democratic Party, they are doing more than both parties. Lastly, they are doing much more, much more than the Clinton administration is doing. I just hope that their effort as a witness by what they are doing will sensitize this administration whereby President Clinton, within the next week or so, will appoint a special envoy who will go to Sudan and go back and forth and mediate between the warring parties whereby these people will know that they can have a future for their children and grandchildren, and slavery will stop, and people will not be persecuted because they happen to accept Christ and they happen to be Christians, because of their faith. Mr. Speaker, the letters that I referred to are as follows: Highline Community School, Aurora, CO, February 22, 1999. Dear Congressman Wolf: I know you are also a freedom fighter and this is one reason we need you! We need your strong caring voice to help us end slavery in Sudan. Please hear the cry for freedom that these beautiful, young, Americans put to their government! The media is giving a lot of attention to these young voices can you help us too? In Freedom, Barb Vogel.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, recently, the Clinton administration submitted its budget proposals for the year 2000 to Congress. The President's budget included many important requests, but one thing it did not include was funding for the Commission on International Religious Freedom created by the International Religious Freedom Act passed overwhelmingly by the Congress last year. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the administration may be all talk and no action when it comes to promoting international religious freedom. A brief lesson is in order. In the closing days of the 105th Congress, the Senate passed the International Religious Freedom Act by a unanimous vote of 98 to nothing. Several days later, the House endorsed the measure by a voice vote. It had already endorsed an earlier version of the bill several months before by a vote of 375-to- 41. Republicans and Democrats alike endorsed the International Religious Freedom Act. So did a broad coalition of religious and civic groups representing millions of Americans of all faiths concerned with regard to human rights. One important part of the act was the International Religious Freedom Commission, a 10-member, independent commission established to monitor persecution around the world and make policy recommendations to the President. The Speaker of the House, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, and the President were each given 3 appointments to the Commission. To ensure that it remains independent, Congress authorized $3 million for the Commission in fiscal year 1999 and the year 2000. The bill was passed, thanks to the tireless efforts over a 2-year period by a broad coalition of religious and civic groups dedicated to this issue. The groups in support of the bill included, among many, the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference, the Anti-Defamation League, the Christian Coalition, the National Association of Evangelicals, the International Campaign for Tibet, the Family Research Council, the Religious Action Center for a Reformed Judaism, the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations, B'nai B'rith, the Episcopal Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, Justice Fellowship, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, and many, many others in support of this bill. The coalition was diverse, but it was united in its commitment to abolishing the rampant and brutal religious persecution taking place in many countries around the world. Just 2 weeks ago in China, the Public Security Bureau officials arrested 2 Roman Catholic priests from Hebei province. These are just the 2 latest priests to be arrested. Dozens, if not hundreds, more bishops and priests and lay people are already in prison for practicing their faith. We know in the Chinese prisons torture is common. Last month the Vatican reported that authorities tortured one Catholic priest by subjecting him to sexual abuse by prostitutes. They tried videotaping the seduction to further humiliate and crush his spirits. That happened in China, and the Clinton administration knows about it. They quite frankly have not said very much about it. But we know persecution continues. The Chinese government continues to arrest, harass, and torture leaders of China's Protestant church. Most of the key leaders are on the run for fear of their lives, and are moving from place to place to avoid being thrown into prison. In Tibet, where I visited last year, the Chinese government has continued its brutal assault on Tibetan Buddhists. A 700-year-old monastery and an 800-year-old nunnery were closed down just 2 weeks ago. I think the administration has been silent on that issue, though. Hundreds have been destroyed since 1959, and those open are controlled by Communist party officials. When we would go into the monasteries, we would hear from the monks that a Chinese cadre of six or seven Chinese police or military were running the Monasteries. Imagine, in our country, if in every one of our churches and synagogues and temples we had government officials running them. We would know that that would be wrong. Hundreds of monks and nuns are in jail. In 1998 alone 59 monks last year, 59 monks and nuns were arrested, and 13 died in prison from torture. This administration and this State Department have been silent. The Chinese have launched an official campaign to encourage atheism in Tibet, where loyalty to the Dalai Lama remains strong despite China's brutal attempts to force the Tibetan people to denounce their spiritual leader. In Sudan, 2 million people have died, the majority of them Christians and animists from southern Sudan. The government of Sudan is seeking to annihilate the population of southern Sudan by engaging in brutal war tactics that include high altitude bombing of civilian targets. I have been in the villages where the bombs have dropped, and saw shrapnel in a woman's head. They just indiscriminately bombed these villages, where there are no military reasons to bomb them whatsoever; high altitude bombing of civilian targets, and the enslavement of Christian women and children. We know today, and if we watched CBS news last week we saw Dan Rather's two-part reports that in Sudan today women and children are being sold into chattel slavery. Yes, there is slavery in Sudan today, women and children, yet this administration does absolutely nothing about it. They are absolutely silent. The enslaved are forced to work as concubines and domestic servants and farm hands. Some, the boys, are sent to the front lines to fight for a government they do not support. Millions are starving in Sudan while the government uses food as a weapon, and denies aid flights to the neediest regions, regions inhabited mostly by Christians or Muslims who do not agree with the government. Millions are dying in the country of Sudan. This administration is silent. In Egypt, the Coptic Christian Church continues to have a very, very difficult time. In Pakistan, the government is actively pushing for passage of a law that would discriminate against and potentially lead to violence against the Pakistan non-Muslim population. Ahmadi Muslims are being persecuted. In Iran, the Baha'i faith is being persecuted. In India, some 48 incidents of violence against Christians have been reported since Christmas of 1998, and dozens of churches have been burned or destroyed. Nuns have been raped and Christians have been killed in a wave of violence. Just after Christmas an Australian Christian missionary and his two sons were burned alive in their car by mobs. This missionary had been there for 30 years to minister to those who were impacted by leprosy. In Indonesia dozens of Christian churches and Moslem mosques have been attacked and burned. People of faith have been attacked and murdered. This goes on and on. Very briefly, I have this picture here which was taken by a staff member for former congressman, now Senator, Sam Brownback of Kansas. He and his staff person went to Sudan over the Christmas break and took pictures of this young boy who was in slavery, who was marked with a slave brand; slavery, slavery, in 1999, and we hear nothing at all from this administration. This is a picture taken in Sudan of the famine, and the number of people. You can see the corpse, and the people that have died because they have no food. This was just taken not very, very long ago. This is a picture taken when I went to Tibet by my staffer, Charlie White, of a young boy outside of a Buddhist temple that had been destroyed. Over 4,000 to 5,000 monasteries in Tibet have been destroyed, and yet the silence of this administration is deafening. In Tibet, we went by the guard tower of the Drosi prison, where many of the Buddhist monks and nuns are put into the prison. The only basic growth industry in Lhasa is the prisons, the number of people that are being put in, and the Buddhists there ask, why is the United States not speaking out? In China, here is a picture of young men who are being executed so they can give their organs to people that want to purchase their lungs and kidneys for transplantation. Yes, the Chinese government is making money, up to $35,000 for an organ. Yet, this administration says nothing. Here is a picture we took when we were in Lhasa. It would be very hard to pick it out, but atop all the buildings there are TV cameras whereby the public security police are monitoring the movement of all the Buddhist monks and nuns and the people. We see the conditions that have taken place to set the mood as to what I am going to comment on, to see that this persecution of people of faith, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist, Baha'i, and many other denominations of faith, is taking place around the world. Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act to ensure that U.S. foreign policy would give priority to combatting religious persecution. I think the record must show that the State Department fought it every step of the way through the legislative process. They did everything they could to stop this bill from passing. The State Department officials constantly misrepresented the bill's provisions. They sought to kill it through gutting amendments in committee and on the floor. They worked hand in glove with some in the business community to exaggerate the bill's impact on trade, and threatened that its passage would actually harm religious communities abroad. If they could have only talked to Scharansky and those in the Soviet Union, who said that when the United States spoke out on their behalf, their life got better. But yet the State Department forgot that and worked against this legislation. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told an audience at Catholic University that the bill would ``* * * create a hierarchy of human rights, and would create an unneeded bureaucracy.'' She said, of efforts to promote religious freedom abroad, ``It is in our interests and it is essential to our identity for Americans to promote religious freedom rights, but if we are to be effective in the values we cherish, we must also take into account the perspective and values of others.'' To which values was she referring? The values of the Sudanese government, that are slaughtering Christians in southern Sudan, or the values of the Chinese government, that is imprisoning Catholic bishops and Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns? President Clinton told an audience, which included a New York Times reporter, that passing the religious persecution bill would force him ``* * * to fudge the facts regarding persecution.'' But only after the Administration's best efforts to defeat the bill were thwarted, the President then did the right thing and signed the bill. He put himself on the right side of history. He has had nothing but good things to say about the bill ever since. That is what makes this budget decision, a deletion, meaning they have asked no money for the commission, very, very troublesome. I am beginning to think that it is just words and no action. I hope the President is not manipulating this issue for his own gain, while the lives of millions of innocent men and women and children in Sudan and China and Egypt and Indonesia and Vietnam and India and Pakistan and other places are at stake. President Clinton talks as if he supports the bill, but when the rubber meets the road, there is no financial support. In the President's budget there is no financial support for the commission. On November 15 of last year, the President sent a statement to the congregation at the National Presbyterian Church here in Washington, which was holding a special prayer service to commemorate the International Day of Prayer for the persecuted church. About 100,000 different denominations of all faiths had some sort of ceremony this year in remembrance of all people of faith who are being persecuted for their faith. At that service, the President commended the efforts of those who worked to pass the bill, and pledged to do what he could to ensure it was fully implemented. I was in the congregation, in the back, listening. I felt very good to hear the representative of the President read this letter to say that now they know that they may have been wrong at the outset, but now they are excited about this bill. But in the days since, is he doing all he can to help? The answer is no. The bill was signed on October 27, 1998. November, December, January, and half of February have gone by, but still the President has not named his appointments to the Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Republicans in Congress were the first to make theirs, despite a challenge in the Speaker of the House. Four individuals were appointed at the end of December. Senator Daschle has found time to name a commissioner. Where is the administration? How many people have died or been tortured for their faith while the administration sits on its hands? Now it turns out the administration did not even request funding for the Commission on International Religious Freedom in the fiscal year 2000. I checked with the Office of Management and Budget. They did not know where it was in the Federal budget. I checked with the State Department. They cannot find it, either. The Commission on International Religious Freedom did not show up once in the 1,300 pages of budget sent to the Congress. In his State of the Union Address, it took the President 77 minutes to list a whole range of special initiatives, many of them good, for which he would be requesting funding this year. There was no mention of the commission, despite the fact that it was supported by a large domestic constituency concerned about human rights and the plight of those suffering for their faith. What was requested? Well, $1.3 million for the Marine Mammal Commission is one example that is in that budget. I personally support the $1.3 million for the Marine Mammal commission. But are not men and women and children who are being persecuted and killed because of their faith just as important as marine mammals? I was in a village in southern Sudan where a woman named Rebecca came up to me, and was telling me of the hardship and the death of all the people of her family who had died. She said something to me that almost brings this right back. She said, if you in the United States and in the West care about the whales, why don't you care about the people? We have that, where she said that. Now we find the Ocean Mammal Commission, which is good. I commend the President, I commend NOAA, I commend the Department of State if they put it in, and I commend the Department of Commerce. But why could they not have put some money in for this commission, to help those who are being persecuted in China and killed because of their faith, and in Sudan, and in many of the other countries? Thankfully, the International Religious Freedom Act has strong bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. There are people of both sides, literally, when we look at it, equally in support of this effort. We had as much support from the Democratic side as from the Republican side. Now the Congress has a chance to do the right thing and provide the funding for the Commission. I will be working with Senator Nickles and others who sponsored the legislation in the Senate and my congressional colleagues on this side of the Capitol to be sure the money is appropriated for fiscal year 2000 and in the FY 1999 supplemental appropriations bill. But the fact that the President did not see the commission as a priority and did not ask Congress to fund it is telling, because they did not ask for the money. But we wonder, if we give them the money, will they even put their efforts behind it and support it? It says that he is all talk and no action; big hat, no cattle; talk about it, get the credit, but do not follow through. During that period of time, in November and December and January and this month, monasteries have been destroyed, monks and nuns arrested in Tibet, the Catholic Church continues to be persecuted in China, and conditions do not improve for the Coptic Christians in Egypt. Not only is this administration silent, but they do not put the money into the commission that they now claim. I hope I am wrong. I hope it was an oversight. I hope the President and the Secretary of State will make implementing the provisions in the bill a priority. I hope they will work in good faith. There is still an opportunity to work in good faith with the commission, and name good people to the panel. That will show the American people that their commitment is genuine. That will show the world thugs that the United States is watching, and will take action against countries that refuse to stop persecuting men and women of faith. The nameless, voiceless victims of China, in Vietnam, in Sudan, in Indonesia, in India and Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and many other places where faith is under attack are waiting, are waiting for a message to show that we care. A woman I talked to in Tibet said she listened to Radio-Free Asia every day to hear, is the United States interested? They will wait to see if we act on this effort. Pushing for funding of the Commission on International Religious Freedom and appointing good people will send that message that this administration cares. Finally, I want to say a word about Dr. Bob Seiple, the person appointed to be the assistant to the Secretary of State for International Religious Freedom. I am pleased that President Clinton appointed him to the job. He is a good man, with a heart for those who are suffering from poverty and injustice. As president of World Vision for over a decade, he gave his life to helping those in need and now he is seeking to make a difference for those suffering for their faith. When he was offered the job, he called me on the telephone and asked me what I thought, should he take it. I said, take it. I encouraged him to go for it because I felt that he could make a difference. I felt he would have the opportunity to do things and to get some things moving, but now we see there is no funding for the commission to give them the ability to make that. The President cannot just appoint Bob Seiple and take credit for having done something for the issue. That would be like Dietrich Bonhoeffer talking about cheap grace. It would be like appointing somebody and putting out a press release and coming to a gathering and speaking to religious leaders to tell them what you have done but there is no follow-through, there is no money, there is no effort because you personally appear to say one thing and do just the other. The President cannot just appear before the gatherings of religious leaders and mention Bob Seiple's name in order to get the kudos with the audience and then walk away and do nothing. That would be, I believe, immoral, and I believe it would be an affront to those who are suffering and dying for their faith around the world. It would be a betrayal of American values and an example of political opportunism at its best. I hope the President will instruct the Secretary of State to empower Bob Seiple to make a real difference for the State Department. I hope his office will receive the adequate resources. I hope the President will meet with Dr. Seiple and listen to what he has to say. I hope he will instruct our ambassadors around the world to do the same, and I hope he will do what he can to help this commission carry out its important duties, not to allow the commission of Mr. Seiple to be marginalized within the administration. That is what will win him real kudos. That is what will help save lives, and that is what will help make the world a safer place for people of faith. If the administration does not come to the Hill and actively seek funding for this commission, the honorable thing to do would be for Bob Seiple to resign, to step down and show that by standing up and speaking out, he was speaking out for those who do not have the voice. He would be the voice for the voiceless. So if there is no funding for this commission and if President Clinton does not support this commission, and if Secretary Albright does not support this commission, then Bob Seiple should not serve and should do the honorable thing and should resign, so he is not being used by this administration.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues a report on my recent trip to Ecuador. I traveled to that South American country January 9-15. I spent two days in the rain forest, one day traveling in country, and two days in Quito, the capital. With the spread of populations and industry into the Amazon Basin, tribal groups are having to come to grips with the realities of 21st century life and I was asked to visit in order to better understand those challenges. The world was stunned 43 years ago, in January of 1956, when the speared bodies of five young men, Jim Elliot, Pete Fleming, Ed McCully, Nate Saint and Roger Youderian, were discovered in the Curaray River of southeastern Ecuador. These were evangelical missionaries from three different missions, who, in their attempt to make meaningful contact with the Auca tribe, had been murdered. Aucas (the Spanish word for ``savage'') had a long history of killing outsiders, friendly or not. In their desire to make contact, these young men--from age 28 to 32-- had known the risk. The response to their deaths was broad and immediate, as other young men and women followed in their steps, led by a wife and a sister of two of the men who had died. As a result of the continued contacts, most of the tribal members stopped their killing within two years of that incident, and for the most part they have lived peacefully since. A few months ago, however, the son of one of the original five men, Steve Saint, contacted my office regarding some of his humanitarian concerns for the people in this tribe, now called in their native language, the Huaorani. As a result, I journeyed with a friend to the Ecuadorian rain forest and also Quito, the capital, between Saturday, January 9, and Friday, January 15, for the purpose of meeting the people, becoming acquainted with the region, and assessing whether I could be of any assistance by understanding the particulars of their situation. The challenges of tribal life in the Amazon Basin, particularly with the inroads of industry, are not small and have been well documented by sociologists, anthropologists, and others. This huge area of rain forest, which is home to as few as 175,000 people in various tribal groups scattered throughout it, has received much attention from the scientific, industrial and religious communities. Upon arrival at Quito airport Saturday evening, we were met by Peter Harding, political officer at our embassy, and Alicia Duran-Ballen, daughter of a former president of Ecuador. She acted as host and interpreter for us while we were in Quito. We left the next morning early by private plane for Nemompade, a very small village in the Amazon Basin, 150 miles southeast of Quito, a few miles from the site on the Curaray where the young men had been killed. We were met there by Steve Saint and spent the next two days and nights with the Huaorani learning how they lived, being shown their ways, and talking with them about their concerns for the future. Generally, we observed their way of life, their culture and their interactions with each other and learned what it is like to live on a day to day basis in the rain forest. A group of high school students from Wheaton Academy, a private school in the Chicago suburbs, were there at the same time. The challenges facing the Huaorani are not on the same order as other groups which I have visited and for which I have expressed great concern previously. However, they are faced with learning to live interactively with hi-tech civilization in the coming years, and learning to do so while maintaining their own identity. Historically, they have been a highly egalitarian group, without much vertical social order. That has been moderated some in the last 40 years to include community elders, who help guide life in the tribe. They have also become somewhat less nomadic in recent years. Government requirements for personal registration, voting at designated venues which may be several days away by jungle trail, and other things necessary to interact with the national culture are matters which are currently under discussion with the Ministry of Government in Quito, and more specifically the Office for Indigenous Affairs. As hunter-gatherers in the rain forest, the national language, use of money, and means of transportation all critical to engagement with the outside world are foreign to the Huaorani and all need to be addressed. Additionally, the request for a radio frequency from the government by which to communicate and educate within the tribal region was in process. Steve Saint's approach has been to understand that the people in this region will continue to interact more and more with interests outside their local environment. The question is not ``When will this process happen?, but ``with whom and can they survive it as a tribal group?'' The people feel that they need to learn to be both independent and interdependent within the national culture, avoiding the pitfalls of becoming welfare recipients. To assist then in that journey, he has invited groups--such as the Wheaton Academy students--to visit for a few days in the rain forest at a neutral site constructed like a village, not an actual settlement. In that manner, the visitors can interact with the Huaorani without interrupting village life. Each person pays a fee and the profits are put into an account in the nearest large town in the names of the village elders. In that way, the Indians are creating a productive economy which they can control. Additionally, health-care skills are being practiced to improve their health without having to journey outside their territory. A simple, but ingenious, form of dentistry is in place so that they can fill teeth, again without journeying long distances. Although sickness does not seem to be prevalent, except diseases that might be ``brought'' from the outside, the Huaorani do have significant problems with decaying teeth. Much of this malady, apparently, stems from their eating staple--manioc roots. Manioc is a starch that converts to sugar readily, hence, tooth problems abound. I use this illustration only to highlight the fact that every effort is being made to help them be self-sufficient on their own terms and with their own resources. Transportation is another significant factor as relates to commerce and healthcare. Although rivers abound in the rainforest, in this area their serpentine characteristic prohibits speed in travel. We traveled 40 minutes by dugout canoe and ended up 100 yards from where we began. The rule of thumb is ``one minute in the air is two hours on a jungle trail.'' Therefore, an attempt is being made to procure an accommodation in the regulations to allow for a plane in the tribe and a ``designated pilot.'' When we returned to Quito, we were able to spend time with our ambassador, Leslie Alexander, and his colleague, Peter Harding. We discussed the nature of our visit and other topics of mutual concern and interest. The following day we visited the persons responsible for the Office of Indigenous Affairs and articulated why we had come to Ecuador and what we had seen. They were grateful for the interest and assured us that they would marshal whatever resources at their disposal to address the issues raised. We then had the opportunity for a good discussion with the president of Ecuador, Jamil Mahuad, joined by Ambassador Alexander. Not only were we able to discuss the situation of the Huaorani, we were also able to invite the president to the National Prayer Breakfast, which he subsequently attended on February 4. In the words of Steve Saint, what the Huaorani need are the following: 1. The right to vote and establish their citizenship within their own territory, which would include a place to register their birth, marriage and death, and to acquire the ``cedulas'' (identity cards) that are required of all citizens. 2. The right to develop their own means of disseminating information throughout their own territory, in their own language, without meeting stringent communication requirements that were established for densely populated territories. They need favorable concession in the acquisition or radio frequencies. Although much of my interest has focused over the years on the violation of human rights around the world, it was encouraging to see a situation in which thoughtful assistance in a timely way could nurture self-determination and the democratic process. I am grateful for the efforts of our Foreign Service Corps in Ecuador for their skill and dedication in the public sector, as well as the work of private U.S. citizens in the humanitarian arena, which enhances the lives of peoples in both countries.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Family Friendly Tax Relief Act of 1999. This legislation will increase the child tax credit for children under age 5 to $1,000. I believe this is an important step toward easing the tax burden for American families with young children. Child development experts agree that a child's interest in learning, sense of security, behavior, and curiosity about the world are deeply rooted in the child care that he or she receives between the ages of 0- 5. When children get off to a good start in life and have high-quality child care (either at home or in a child care program), they have the best opportunity to flourish and they have all the necessary tools to start school. Children who are cared for well from birth have a distinct advantage over those who are in low-quality, over-crowded, or under-staffed child care programs or those who come from homes where money is scarce and parents are forced to chose between spending time with their children or putting food on the table. Increasing the tax credit by $500 for children under age 5 will help all parents in providing care for their children. Frequently, parents of young children lack the income and seniority in their careers that parents of older children enjoy, and they often cannot afford high- quality child care. In addition, child care is more expensive for young children than it is for older children and parents of young children are sometimes hit with a double whammy: more expensive child care and less income to contribute toward the care of their children. Unfortunately, many, if not most, working parents have to choose between financial security and spending time with their children during the important development years of age 0-5. Single parent families and families with a stay-at-home parent also face financial dilemmas and can experience much hardship associated with the fact that they are dependent on one source of income. If the employed parent loses his or her job or has a reduction in salary, the family's financial security can be wiped out in a matter of days. There are also many communities in the United States where cost-of-living is so high that it can be nearly impossible to survive on only one income. Some single parents have to work two jobs just to make ends meet. In addition, parents who choose to sacrifice income in order to stay home with their children sometimes have to make other sacrifices based on finances that affect their children's living environment, physical well-being, or sense of security. More and more parents are facing time constraints and financial constraints that make it impossible for them to choose the type of child care that they would prefer if given all the options. Be providing an increase in the child tax credit for young children, parents will have the opportunity to keep more of their hard-earned incomes for family needs. Having as little as 500 extra dollars a year per young child may make a significant difference. Parents who work outside the home may use the extra income to enroll their child in a child care program that is better matched to their child's needs. Some working parents may have the ability to reduce their work hours so that they can spend more time with their children. Single parent families or families who choose to get by on one income will also have more income to help make ends meet. While President Clinton has proposed an increase in the child care tax credit for children under age 1 (by $250 depending on income), I believe that more needs to be done to help parents of young children. My legislation goes beyond President Clinton's proposal and will help all parents who are struggling with raising their children in an increasingly complex, threatening, and busy world. Helping our nation's youngest children is the key to ensuring the future of our country.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation that will improve the safety of our highways for the millions of motorists who use them. Very simply, my legislation moves the Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Trucks are Dangerous In 1997, 5,355 people died on America's highways in truck related accidents. That was not only more people killed than in the previous year, but more people than any other year in this decade. Regardless of who's at fault, when a tractor-trailer is involved in an accident on our highways, the consequences are too often fatal. I should note that many, if not most, trucks are operated safely and their drivers are concerned first and foremost with safety. Unfortunately, there are always operators on the margins who make the roads unsafe and in 1997, the last year for which figures are available, the number of people killed in truck related accidents has risen to a new high for the decade. The trucking industry dismisses these figures by noting that the per-vehicle-mile death rate has gone down. They're right. But the fact remains that the number of people who died in 1997 from accidents rose. To put the issue in perspective, compare these figures to the aviation industry. What would our response be if the aviation industry suggested that only 5,355 people died in airline crashes? What if we rationalized that as a percentage of miles traveled, there has been a reduction in fatalities? There would be outrage in America. Last year, the domestic aviation industry's rate of death's per mile traveled also decreased. But the actual number of aviation related fatalities decreased too, all the way to zero. This must be our goal: a reduction in the both actual and per-vehicle-mile deaths on our highways. We are talking about real people--not just statistics. Current Efforts to Monitor the Industry are Lacking Federal efforts to monitor the trucking industry for safety are falling short. The Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) which is responsible for the oversight of the trucking industry is a component of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the agency principally tasked with managing over $25 billion in highway and construction dollars. Locating OMC under FHWA has placed a lower priority on truck safety issues and blunted some of the initiatives needed to maintain an effective and forceful monitoring program. In fact, OMC personnel have become too close to some in the trucking industry which I believe has compromised their effectiveness. Recently, the U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General (DOT IG) completed a study of OMC and its close ties to the trucking industry. In the attached report summary, the IG found that OMC leadership has engaged in a ``strategy . . . devised to solicit the trucking industry and third party communications to Congress in order to generate opposition to the OMC transfer provision in [Congressional legislation].'' In short, OMC contacted the industry it is charged with regulating to solicit support to defeat a proposal to move the OMC to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). OMC officials have effectively gotten in debt to the very people they are supposed to regulate. Solution: Consolidate OMC Functions in Another Safety Agency In my opinion, the rising number of deaths and the poor oversight of the trucking industry by OMC is partially a result of OMC's location at FHWA. FHWA is skilled at building and maintaining roads, but has done a poor job at monitoring the trucking industry. This task has not been high on the priority list. Therefore, I have suggested a reorganization where OMC will become a part of an existing or new managerial structure whose primary mission will be safety. I have suggested NHTSA, and I recognize the possibility that a better structure may exist. The legislation I introduce today, if not the answer, is a good place to start. The dispatch with which this proposal is implemented becomes critical when we consider that on January 1, 2000, less than a year from now, the Northern American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will permit trucks crossing the border from Mexico to travel anywhere in the United States. Anywhere. Currently, Mexican trucks are permitted to travel in border commercial zones which range from three to 20 miles. A recent DOT IG report, which is also enclosed, found that of the 3.7 million trucks from Mexico crossing in 1998, only 17,332 were inspected, and of this number, 44 percent were found to be in such disrepair that they were immediately taken out of service. These unsafe trucks could be in your state next year. These trucks could be on every road in America-- most uninspected and many grossly unsafe. We need to address this problem now. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, which I chair, will be holding hearings on this important issue Tuesday, February 23.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation regarding so-called ``cruises to nowhere.'' ``Cruises to nowhere'' are gambling cruises, ships where a destination, created for the sole purpose of allowing passengers to gamble on the high seas on board a floating casino. The cruises depart from a certain state, sail three miles into international waters for gambling, and then return to the same state. States receive no revenue from the cruises, but must absorb the social costs associated with the gambling traffic through their state. Mr. Speaker, my legislation is about the fundamental principle that states should be able to determine on their own if they want gambling cruises in their state. My colleagues should be aware that on October 16, 1998, a federal district court ruled in the state of South Carolina that federal law preempts certain state laws prohibiting ``cruises to nowhere,'' and are therefore unenforceable. (Casino Ventures v. Robert M. Stewart, et al. C/A No. 2:98-1923-18, October 1998) The federal law cited by the court is a poorly worded 1992 amendment to the Johnson Act buried a bill designating the ``Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary'' (P.L. 102-251). Congress did not intend for the 1992 amendment to supercede states' rights, and we should act to restore state sovereignty with regard high-states, unpoliced and unregulated casino gambling around the country. Almost every state has a law making it illegal to possess gambling equipment (e.g., slot machines). Thus it should be patently illegal for a day-trip gambling boat to dock in a state with statues that clearly prohibit such operations, and it was illegal prior to enactment of the 1992 Johnson Act amendment. In the meantime, casino ``cruises to nowhere'' have started operating out of Florida, Georgia, New York, Massachusetts, and South Carolina. Most recently, ``cruises to nowhere'' are planning to dock in Virginia and begin operations out of Virginia Beach. Unless Congress acts soon, almost all other states bordering the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, or Gulf of Mexico could expect gambling ships to be docking very soon. The legislation I am introducing today would make it clear that no preexisting state gambling law is weakened, preempted, or superseded by the 1992 Johnson Act amendment. My legislation will restore state sovereignty with regard to ``cruises to nowhere.'' (It will give states the right to debate, vote and ultimately decide for themselves if they want this type of gambling). If states do choose to permit ``cruises to nowhere,'' they can enact appropriate legislation, but will not be forced to by the federal government. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in this fundamental issues of restoring states' rights. In particular, I urge members from coastal states to take a look at this issue and join me as a cosponsor.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, for months I have been troubled by the matter of the President. I wish more than anything that we were not here at this moment in our Nation's history poised to vote on the articles of impeachment as reported by the House Judiciary Committee. I regret that this vote was not averted both for the sake of the Office of the Presidency and the American people. But this matter has moved through its consitutionally mandated process and we must vote according to our conscience and to our sworn duty as representatives in the Congress. I am aware of the public opinion polls and the snapshots in time those surveys report which show people are generally content and would rather not upset the apple cart. Had political opinion polls been the guiding principle on other important matters before our nation, such as women's suffrage and desegregation how long would it have taken for elected officials to have done the right thing? We cannot be led by the current polling data. There comes a time when leaders must lead, no matter what the political fallout. I am aware the Republican majority party could pay a price for doing what I believe is the right thing and protecting the rule of law. A vote for impeachment in the House to send this matter to the Senate for final resolution, I believe, is the right thing for this country. On February 5, 1998, I made the following statement regarding the President: A Matter of Truth (Special order statement by Representative Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, February 5, 1998) Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to speak on what has been happening in this country lately. It's not about impeachment of the President. Or prosecution of the President. It's what's been on my mind and on my conscience. For all the clamor in the press and on radio and TV about allegations swirling around the President, there has been a blanket of silence on the part of too many who ought to provide commentary on the moral tone of this country. And I am not sure why. Perhaps there is a ``don't rock the boat'' feeling. Times are good and let's just sweep this under the rug and not focus on the moral aspect of this. Perhaps the talk of impeachment and prosecution got out there too early and preempted those who might have felt obligated to comment on the moral issue and its impact on leadership of the country. Their reluctance was not evident in earlier cases. The young woman who flew Air Force B-52s, the military general passed over for chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the tail-hook scandal which touched a number of senior Navy officials, charges against a former Senator who resigned, a Supreme Court nominee, a Presidential candidate and others brought a tidal wave of comment from every corner of America. In America, a person is innocent until proven guilty. But we are not talking about a court of law. We are talking about right and wrong. We must give the President the benefit of the doubt. But let's not say these things don't matter. Because they do. They are at the very heart of honor, integrity, character and leadership. What a person does in private affects the type of person he or she is in public. And a leader has an obligation to take responsibility for his or her actions and not try to explain them away or blame others. If indeed we have lost the capacity to distinguish vice from virtue, if we believe that private behavior has no public consequences, if we believe that our nation's leaders do not have to be good and moral and righteous men and women who live by the truth, then we have abandoned the very heritage of this nation. I believe America ought to expect more from its leaders and I think most agree. If, as has been the case for ages, kids want to grow up to be President of the United States, then, like it or not, the person holding that title has a special responsibility and we have every right to hold him or her accountable to that duty. Saying Americans don't care just doesn't wash with me. Truth is something we have always honored in this country. We teach our children from an early age to be truthful. George Washington's birthday is coming soon, and we have long told the story about his admitting to cutting down the cherry tree--``I cannot tell a lie.'' When any President takes office there is an implied promise that he or she will level with the people, that he or she will be honest with them. A solemn bond of trust has always existed between the President and the people. And it must always be this way. Every President has an obligation to tell the whole truth. If Richard Nixon had told the whole truth and asked the people for forgiveness, I believe he would have been forgiven. Today there is a pall of doubt over the presidency. Not being forthcoming with whatever the truth may be leaves doubt about the bond of trust between the President and the people and keeps open the question of fitness to serve in high office. The only way America can put this behind us once and for all is to be assured that when the President speaks, he is telling the truth. I hope this President can give this assurance. If President Clinton tells the American people the whole truth and needs forgiveness, I believe he will be forgiven. All of us err and make mistakes, including me. No one is perfect. But for forgiveness and healing to take place there first must be confession and truth. Then we can move on. Thank you. On August 17, President Clinton belatedly addressed the nation admitting to an ``improper relationship.'' On September 9, the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) referred to the House of Representatives a report outlining 11 charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and abuse of power in what the OIC called ``substantial and credible information that President Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.'' On September 15, after review and consideration of the OIC report, I made the following statement calling on President Clinton to resign for the sake of his family and the Nation: On the Matter of the President (Statement by Representative Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, September 15, 1998) It was seven months ago when I stood on the House floor and stated that if President Clinton would tell the American people the whole truth and ask for their forgiveness, then I believed that he would and should be forgiven and allowed to continue in office. Unfortunately, in the ensuing months, the President instead chose a campaign of deception, cover-up, and counterattacks in a relentless push for self- preservation. He has let the American people down in a grievous manner. He has abused the power of the Office of the Presidency. I believe he has lost the ability to be an effective and credible leader of our country. When he had the chance early on, he failed to apologize and accept responsibility for his actions. He has only recently acknowledged his misconduct and his misleading of the American people and he has now apologized, when perhaps faced with no other choice. Should we forgive him? I believe yes, on a personal level, as a human being, we understand his personal embarrassment and should accept his apologies and forgive him. We all make mistakes. none of us is perfect. As disappointing as the President's behavior in the Oval Office has been, however, this is not just bout his personal indiscretions. It is about the bond of honor and trust between the President and the people. The President has betrayed that trust. I believe the President's moral authority, personal credibility and integrity have been irreparably damaged. President Clinton has said that this is a private matter to be dealt with by his family. But he himself brought it beyond that at the moment he lied in a sworn deposition and again before a federal grand jury. There must be accountability for his violation of the solemn trust the American people have placed in him. Actions have consequences. The President's abuse of the trust placed in the highest office in this land has damaged his credibility to lead. The President's word should be his bond, but we now see that it has not been. Instead, we have to analyze and parse and dissect each of his words to ensure that we are not being duped. We see his well-paid lawyers trying to redefine morality, twisting words and phrases to have different meanings. What does this do to our judicial system, to our society? What message does this send to our young people? Much in the fabric of our society depends on people telling the truth, or a common understanding of wrongdoing. Character does matter. The President is not a mere policy technician. He is the emblem of all that our country stands for. He is our representative to the world. He is the preeminent role model. Nations and governments around the world depend upon the veracity of his word and his character to make major decisions. In Luke 12:48 we are told that ``to whom much has been given, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.'' Our presidents are entrusted with much and our expectations of them as leaders are high. Truth matters in both public and private life. In his televised address to the nation on August 17, the President expressed concern that too many people have been hurt by this unfortunate episode. As this process continues, how many more people will be hurt? How many more lives shattered? The impeachment process will be long and drawn out over months, possibly not concluding until early next summer. My fear is that it will divide the country. It also will divert the attention of the nation away from important domestic and foreign policy matters. Our leadership--the White House and the Congress--will be tied up, debilitated at a time of serious problems in the world. From a world view, we face dangerous times. Russia, Asia and Latin America are in economic crisis. India and Pakistan are testing nuclear weapons. The threat of terrorism is increasing. There is instability still in Iraq with Saddam Hussein, in Bosnia, North Korea, and elsewhere. We need to pay attention to keeping our own economy strong. We wish that this whole matter had not taken place. But it did, by the President's own admission. This resulted in deceiving the American people, the President's family, his Cabinet and the White House staff. Now the investigation has brought charges by the Office of Independent Counsel of perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of constitutional authority which have begun the congressional inquiry process for impeachment. And, the OIC's work is not over and could continue for a long time. As long as this investigation goes on, the country is basically stalled, with the President's attention diverted, and that's dangerous not only for our country, but for the world. Therefore, painful though it is, I believe the time has come for the President to resign. It's time he put aside his own interests and do what's best for America and its interests. He and his administration have had successes and accomplishments. But in the time ahead, this President will be handcuffed to a matter of his own making, a matter from which the only escape for him and our country is his resignation. Though we should and do personally forgive him, we cannot undo or deny the irreparable damage that his conduct has brought upon his ability to serve as President. Resignation is the honorable thing to do. I believe that the President's resignation can be an act of nobility on his part. I further believe that this President will have the opportunity to make significant contributions to our country in the future as a private citizen. But now, I urge the President to do the right thing for his family and his country and resign the Office of the Presidency and bring this saga to an end. Today, I am convinced the President lied under oath and obstructed justice. On June 30, 1994, upon signing into law the current Independent Counsel statute, President Clinton said, ``It ensures that no matter what party controls the Congress or the executive branch, an independent, nonpartisan process will be in place to guarantee the integrity of public officials and ensure that no one is above the law.'' President Clinton is the highest law enforcement official in our nation. He must be held to a higher standard of integrity, not a lesser standard. We live in a society governed by the rule of law, not by man. I was one of only eight House Republican members to vote not to seat Representative Gingrich as Speaker for the 105th Congress until completion of the then pending ethics committee report. It was a difficult vote and it angered many in my own party. My vote then was a vote of conscience, as is my vote today. President Clinton had it right in 1994: ``. . . no one is above the law.'' President Clinton, the highest ranking law enforcement official in our Nation, has shown contempt for the law and must be held accountable. The matter before this body is clear. It is about the integrity of the rule of law, it is about telling the truth, it is about our Nation's basic judicial principles, our founding principles of democracy, and upholding the trust and respect of the Office of the Presidency.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, as the 105th Congress prepares to adjourn, I want to bring to the attention of our colleagues an important issue which, unfortunately, hasn't seemed to register with many of America's leaders. But it's one that needs our focused attention, and that's gambling. Twenty years ago, if you wanted to gamble you had to go to Atlantic City or Las Vegas. But today, gambling has spread in one form or another to most of the 50 States. There are only two States which have completely banned gambling, and that's Utah and Hawaii. One reason for the incredible rate at which gambling is spreading is through the proliferation of gambling casinos in many States. I certainly respect Native American Indians, but I'm really concerned about the number of gambling establishments on tribal lands. For those of us who say we really care about Native Americans, we need to show our concern about what gambling is doing to them. A new University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research study found that Native Americans in Montana have a compulsive gambling rate that is double the rate of other adults in the State. My point is that as gambling spreads throughout the States, so does gambling addiction. Montana is just one State that has a real battle on its hands. The Montana study found that 78 percent of Montanans gamble, and that figure is regardless of income, education, age, sex, and marital status. Compulsive gambling rates are on the increase, the study also said, up from 2.2 percent of the adult population six years ago to 3.6 percent now. First, gambling is corrupting the political process. I have mentioned before my concern about the incredible amounts of money the gambling interests are pouring into the political process. Both sides are taking the money--Republicans and Democrats. And we are reading news reports more frequently than ever about one government official after another being investigated for gambling-related corruption, from an ex-governor and his son to even a member of the President's cabinet. Second, it's hurting local businesses. People only have so many extra dollars to spend on food and entertainment. If they're spending their disposable income at the new casino in town, that's money that the local restaurant doesn't get, or the movie theater, or local retailers. Local business is being cannibalized by the casinos. Mom and pop restaurants can't compete with the discounted and even free meal deals at the gambling operations. Another thing that happens when gambling comes to town is that crime goes up. The U.S. Treasury Department has been increasingly concerned at the way casinos attract criminal elements and suspicious activity, especially money-laundering and has proposed new regulations that would require casinos and card clubs to report to Treasury any suspicious transactions of $3,000 or more. Of course, the casinos are fighting these regulations tooth and nail. But the fact is, a cash-heavy criminal can find a safe haven in a casino. Drug dealers, armed robbers, embezzlers--these kind of people can walk in, buy a few thousand dollars worth of chips, then turn them in for a casino check later that night and can go relatively unnoticed. Just a few months ago, four employees at some casinos in Atlantic City were arrested in a sting operation as they allowed undercover agents to launder more than $400,000 in what they allegedly believed was drug money. so the Treasury Department is concerned for good reason. But crime is not the only issue. We are in a period of record bankruptcies all across the country, so much so that we had to appropriate money to pay for more bankruptcy judges. Studies have shown a significant link between gambling and bankruptcy, even geographically. Where there are more gambling facilities, there are more bankruptcies. This is an issue that must be addressed. It is out of control. Just the other day, a federal judge in Memphis said that because a woman had a gambling addiction problem, she didn't have to pay back the $8,200 in gambling debts she ran up on her credit card just before she filed for bankruptcy. Is there any doubt that the gambling issue must be addressed if we're talking about bankruptcy reform? But not only bankruptcies increase when gambling comes in. Tragically, so do suicides, The American Association of Suicidology published the study ``Elevated Suicide Levels Associated with Legalized Gambling'' in the Winter 1997 issue of its journal Suicide and Life- Threatening Behavior. The study, which was conducted by Dr. David P. Phillips of the University of California at San Diego, found that there is a link between gambling and suicide. Las Vegas, the premier U.S. gambling setting, displays the highest levels of suicide in the nation, both for residents of Las Vegas and for visitors to that setting, the study said. In general, visitors to and residents of major gaming communities experience significantly elevated suicide levels. In Atlantic City, abnormally high suicide levels for visitors and residents appeared only after gambling settings were opened. The findings do not seem to result merely because gaming settings attract suicidal individuals. But how do people get to the point where they're ready to take their own lives? It can actually start at a very young age. We're seeing and hearing more and more these days about how gambling is hurting young people. And by ``young,'' I'm talking about small children. Some critics, including Ed Looney, executive director of the Council on Compulsive Gambling of New Jersey, say that amusement arcades teach children that gambling is okay, and that it opens the door for later problems. According to an article last month in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, gambling cities such as Las Vegas have tried to fashion themselves into ``family-friendly'' entertainment by providing casino arcades. But most of the games in the arcades, the article says, are gambling devices. The biggest difference between what's happening to the parents on the casino floor and what's happening to the kids in the casino arcades, the article says, is that ``the kids are ripped off even more than the adults.'' ``These are not pinball machines or video games to afford entertainment time for the money,'' the article says, but they are ``virtual slot machines designed to turn money over quickly. One watches the children in the arcades with dismay. Many exhibit the same agitated and frustrated demeanor of gambling-addicted adults as they pump their coins into the machines.'' Gambling proponents say they are concerned about unattended children in casinos. That new found concern may have been spurned by high- publicity cases like the one last year in a Primm, Nev., casino hotel. A 7-year-old girl from Los Angeles, a second-grader, had been playing in and around a casino arcade, left on her own, while her father gambled. She was raped and murdered. Syndicated columnists Don Feder and William Safire have both written recent op-ed articles decrying the gambling industry's targeting of children. In a recent column, Feder reported that the Las Vegas Hilton spent $70 million on a ride called ``Star Trek: The Experience.'' Young people waited for hours in line to get on the ride, and the line stretched through a gambling area. Hundreds of kids took the opportunity to play the slot machines, Feder reported. Something tells me the casino was not at all unhappy about this experience. If they are to exist in the future, they have to seduce the next generation of customers. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader is saying the same thing these days. ``The idea is that parents will feel less guilty if they are subjected to family entertainment, and that the next generation of gambling addictees must be given attention,'' Nader said at a recent speech in Washington, D.C. ``The gambling industry is as brazen as the tobacco and alcohol industry,'' Nader said. ``It is even more brazen.'' More and more teens are finding themselves trapped in a web of gambling from which they can't break free. The New York Times printed a shocking front-page story about this a few months ago. The article cited a study by Harvard Medical School's Dr. Howard Shaffer, who published a recent study which found that young people are becoming addicted to gambling at a rate almost three times higher than that of adults. The article also cited a Louisiana State University study which found that one in seven 18- to 21-year-olds in Louisiana were problem gamblers. These are young people with a ``chronic and progressive psychological disorder characterized by an emotional dependence on gambling and a loss of control over their gambling.'' The 1996 New Mexico Survey of Gambling Behavior conducted a similar study and found that more than 85 percent of New Mexico's 18- to through 20-year-olds gamble. More than 66 percent said they had gambled in the previous month. Out of the 85 percent of young people who gamble, 37 percent said they were having gambling problems and 12 percent said they had a serious problem with gambling. The study also found a strong link between gambling behavior before the age of 21 and the development of serious gambling-related problems. In New Jersey, gambling among teens is on the rise, according to the Council of Compulsive Gambling of New Jersey's Edward Looney. Looney says there is gambling in every high school in New Jersey, including gambling which is backed by organized crime. One survey of high school juniors and seniors reported that 30 percent gamble once a week at casinos, race tracks, on sports--including their own school's sports-- on the lottery. According to the state's statistics, 91,754 juveniles were arrested or evicted from New Jersey casinos in 1997 alone. Out of this number, 329 were found gambling on slot machines and 114 at tables. There were 38,502 teens escorted from casinos last year, and 52,364 were turned away at the door when they tried to enter illegally. But there's more. Not only is gambling hurting moms and dads and young people. But it's also hurting grandma and grandpa. According to a recent article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the spread of legalized gambling across America has led to financial ruin for many senior citizens. In Iowa, the article said, three years after riverboat gambling was introduced, bingo and casino gambling became the number- one pastime of choice for people over 65 years of age in the Omaha area. Is that what each of us envisions for ourselves when we think about retiring? Spending our Golden Years addicted to gambling? I don't think so. But that's what's happening, all over America. The gambling industry says it's concerned about problem gambling among the elderly. But when you read their trade publications, ad after ad features grey- haired men and women beckoning seniors to ``join in the fun.'' Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, many American people are starting to wise up to what's really going on here. As they are watching friends, neighbors and their own family members sinking in gambling's quicksand, they are speaking up and standing up against this blight on our nation. In state after state, voters are making their voices heard, loud and clear. They don't want it in their communities. Take casino gambling, for instance. Out of the last 21 efforts to bring in casinos nationwide, all have failed but one, and that one, in Detroit, Michigan, won only by a very slim margin. Even now, the citizens there are seeking to overturn that decision. What is needed in our country is for our community leaders and elected officials to hear the voice of the American people on this issue, for they have indeed spoken. They have seen that gambling is bad for their families, bad for their communities, bad for their kids. It is destructive. It is dangerous. I could go on and on for hours citing cases and studies. We have reports piled high in my office. But I think what I've shared with you today is enough of a taste--a bitter taste--of what gambling really means for a lot of people. This is a problem that is national in scope. That's why we had to pass legislation which the President signed into law to establish the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. The commission is over half way through its two-year comprehensive evaluation of gambling's impact in America, including open meetings all across the country, and is expected to report its findings by next summer. We need to wake up. It is wrong to allow government to become the predator of the people. Think about this the next time gambling's high- priced lobbyists show up at your door with a campaign contribution or an offer to put on a ``high-dollar'' fundraiser.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House an important development in the safety of our nation's highways: transferring the Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Mr. Speaker, as the members of the body know, the Office of Motor Carriers monitors an important component of our country's economy: the trucking industry. Not only does OMC monitor and enforce compliance with rules, regulations, and laws, it is expected to improve the safety of trucks that share the road with passenger vehicles. After learning alarming statistics about truck safety violations and truck accident rates, the House transportation appropriations subcommittee included a provision in the FY 1999 Department of Transportation appropriations legislation to transfer OMC to NHTSA. Our Senate colleagues agreed. That office transfer, in my opinion, is not only bold, but necessary. It will save lives. Now, we see, though, that the trucking industry lobby convinced some in Congress to strike the transfer provision from the omnibus appropriations legislation, which includes the transportation spending bill. I am extremely disappointed that the OMC provision has been dropped. I understand that assurances have been given that comprehensive hearings to investigate truck safety will be held early next year on this critical safety issue in both the House and Senate authorizing committees. I pledge, too, that the House transportation appropriations subcommittee will not let this matter drop. We will also hold hearings on highway and truck safety and how the mission of OMC could be enhanced by transferring the office to NHTSA. In addition, because the issue of truck safety is literally one of life and death, I have written the Inspector General at the Department of Transportation and the General Accounting Office asking that both investigate the truck safety issue. Copies of those letters are submitted for the record. I continue to believe that the Office of Motor Carriers should be transferred to the nation's top highway traffic safety office, and our colleagues should know that this matter will continue to be at the top of our agenda. With regard to the trucking industry, there can be no higher priority than improving safety. However, it is not clear that the industry believes safety is its number one priority. Let me share some alarming statistics with you: Commercial trucks represent just 3 percent of all registered vehicles in the United States, but they were involved in 13 percent of the total traffic fatalities in 1997. Over the past ten years, the fatal accident rate for all vehicles has been declining. However, commercial motor vehicle accidents, fatalities, and fatality rates are increasing. Last year 5,335 people died on U.S. roads in accidents involving heavy trucks. The national figure reflects a 4.5-percent increase in truck-related deaths from the prior year and is this decade's highest one-year tally so far. One out of eight traffic fatalities in 1997 resulted from a collision involving a large truck. Large trucks are more likely to be involved in fatal, multiple vehicle crashes. Over the past eight years, the Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration has not been able to significantly reduce the number of commercial motor vehicles or drivers operating on our roadways that are not fit to be in service. One in five trucks is operating with mechanical defects so serious that the truck is legally not allowed to continue the trip until the problems are corrected. Eight percent of the drivers are placed out-of-service. Neither of these statistics has altered significantly since 1990. In 1997, the Virginia State police conducted 42,256 motor carrier inspections. Of those trucks inspected, the state police found 25,221 defects (60 percent) and 19,861 drivers in violation (46 percent). I submit for the Record a report I received from the Virginia State Police with those alarming statistics. The Department of Transportation's Inspector General (IG), in a review of the motor carrier safety program, concluded that FHWA's enforcement efforts were not effective in inducing prompt and sustained compliance with regulations and safe on-the-road performance. Seventy five percent of the carriers sampled did not sustain a satisfactory rating, and after a series of compliance reviews, 54 percent of the carriers had vehicle out-of-service rates from roadside inspections higher than the national average. There is a growing concern that trucks are dangerous. I want to be clear, though, that I believe many in the trucking industry work hard to maintain safe trucks. To be sure, however, there are a number of trucks operating on the nation's highways which are unsafe and dangerous. This concern is worsened by the fact that most of the fatal injuries in trucking accidents are to the occupants of the other, typically smaller, vehicle. It is because of these concerns that I, as chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, recommended moving OMC from FHWA to NHTSA, because the functions of OMC are much more closely aligned with those of NHTSA. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as its name implies, is focused on safety. Moving OMC to NHTSA would strengthen and consolidate the Department of Transportation vehicle safety programs. A single modal administration can provide a more consistent and synchronous safety program and agenda. An agency with a consolidated safety focus will see the entire safety picture rather than a system where one agency looks at truck safety and another looks at passenger care safety, as is currently in place. After all, trucks and cars share the same roads. With the striking of the OMC transfer provision, I believe, safety will be diminished and lives will be lost. More accidents will occur like the one last month in Knoxville, Tennessee. According to the accident report, a tractor-trailer came upon traffic stopped because of construction several miles ahead. The truck, running at almost 70 miles per hour, ran into the back of a sport utility vehicle, knocking it into a concrete barrier; sideswiped another tractor trailer while swerving into the right hand lane; and smashed into the back of a van, pushing it into the trailer of a third truck in front. The van immediately exploded. The lone occupant of the sport utility vehicle and the lone occupant of the van were killed immediately. None of the truck drivers were injured. This is emblematic of the fears most Americans hold for heavy trucks every day they are on the Nation's highways. Knowing that information about trucks on our highways just increases my disappointment that the office transfer will not occur this year. My view that such a move will save lives is also shared by The Washington Post, which said in a September 19, 1998, editorial: The office of motor carriers is responsible for truck safety requirements such as the length and weight of the vehicle and the time a trucker may drive; the logical home for this office is in the agency that deals with other vehicle safety issues. The full editorial is submitted for the Record. Our colleagues should also know I received a recent letter from an employee at OMC who said, I just want you to know that you have a great deal of support from the actual workers within the Office of Motor Carriers. * * * [T]he average investigator completes 1 compliance review per month. Last year it was 2.5 compliance reviews per month and the year before it was more than five compliance reviews per month and so forth. * * * I think OMC should get moved to NHTSA. Clearly, nobody at the top within the FHWA recognizes the importance of compliance and enforcement. According to the impact assessment model developed within OMC, compliance reviews save lives. Why aren't we doing enough of these? * * * Mr. Speaker, indeed, why aren't we doing enough? I pledge to our colleagues that we will focus our effort and energy next year to shining the spotlight on truck safety in America, and to finding the answer to that critical question. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC, October 20, 1998. Mr. Kenneth Mead, Inspector General, Department of Transportation, Washington,

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, on June 24, 1998, Members of Congress, friends, colleagues, and family came together to witness the unveiling of a bust created in loving memory of the late Representative Bill Emerson of Missouri. The event was attended by over 300 people who crowded into the Capitol's Statuary Hall to be part of this tribute. This extremely generous effort was made possible due to the dedication and loyalty of the many friends of Bill Emerson. However, one individual stands out as giving his unlimited personal time and determination to make this project a reality. Former staff member and close friend Bill Coffield set up the Bill Emerson Memorial Foundation in 1997 with its sole charter being to build a lasting memorial to the late Congressman. Once established, Mr. Coffield, with the help of others, set out to solicit private donations and corporate contributions to fund the creation of the bust. Thanks in large part to the significant generosity of The Doe Run Company, Sabreliner Corporation, The Pillsbury Company, TRW Inc., Hill International, Inc., SBC Communications, American Sugar Alliance, ASARCO, National Mining Association, Noranda Aluminum, Inc., The Jefferson Group, Inc., and Sharp and Lankford, the Foundation had the financial support to move forward in commissioning a sculptor. Renowned sculptor Michael Curtis of Alexandria, Virginia, was commissioned and began by reviewing numerous photographs spanning several years of Bill's life. I was honored to take part in this event, which began with an invocation by the House Chaplain, followed by personal tributes drom several Members including the Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Senator Pat Roberts and other distinguished colleagues from the House including Reps. Kanjorski and Skelton, and Bill's widow, Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, Mr. Curtis unveiled the bust for all to see. The finished product is truly a work of art. A remarkable and life- like bust of our colleague and friend will now reside at the entrance of the Page School in the Library of Congress. The location could not be more fitting--appropriately named Emerson Hall--since Bill's political career started in the 1950's as a page himself, and he was past chairman of the House Page Board. We can all be proud knowing that the likeness of our beloved late friend, Bill Emerson, will forever smile upon the enthusiastic young men and women who come to Washington as pages--like Bill did--to invest in themselves and of themselves in the service of their country. I know in my heart that Bill will watch over these fine young men and women with the love and respect he shared for his family, friends, colleagues and the proud people of southern Missouri he so capably represented.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, October 10, the House of Representatives cleared for the President's signature the International Religious Freedom Act, H.R. 2431. The Senate had approved the measure by a unanimous vote of 98-0 on Friday, October 9. During floor debate on the measure, I thanked a number of people who helped bring this legislation to fruition. I today want to pay tribute to the work of Michael Horowitz, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute; A.M. Rosenthal of the New York Times; and Anne Huiskes, senior legislative assistant on my staff. First, I want to commend the work of Michael Horowitz. The movement against Christian persecution which has sprouted in the American Christian community in recent years can be credited, in part, to the leadership, vision and voice of Michael Horowitz. When he first learned about the injustice taking place against Christians around the world he set about trying to foster change. His experience as a Washington insider, a former Reagan Administration official, and a veteran of the fight against anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union provided a unique insight. In a 1995 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled ``Between Crescent and Cross,'' Horowitz asked how America, and the American government, could remain silent when ``the evidence of growing and large-scale persecution of evangelicals and Christian converts is overwhelming.'' From there, he helped launch a crusade to raise awareness about anit- Christian persecution abroad using the campaign against Soviet anti- Semitism as the model. He joined with many others who were calling for change, and what developed was a movement spawning greater awareness about persecution against people of all faiths. He has helped turn this issue into one of the most under-reported and obscure issues in Washington, to one of the most compelling human rights issues of the day. Because of the work of Michael Horowitz and many others, the United States government, for the first time in history, has a comprehensive policy to deal with the issue of religious persecution overseas. His voice and vision have helped millions of Christians, Muslims, Bahai's, Tibetan Buddhists, Jews, Hindus and other people of faith seeking to live and worship in peace. I also want to applaud the work of A.M. Rosenthal, former editor-in- chief of the New York Times and one of the most prominent figures in 20th century American journalism. I have been told that since 1994, Rosenthal has dedicated 31 of his weekly columns in the New York Times to the issue of religious persecution--asking why more is not being done, prodding policymakers to stand up for the persecuted and pricking the conscience of all those who read his eloquent words. He talked tough and spoke the truth. He did so courageously, and with authority. He has truly been the voice for the voiceless around the world. Finally, I pay tribute to Anne Huiskes of my staff, who deserves so much credit for helping to move this measure forward. Our colleagues know that any measure of success we as Members achieve must be shared with the staff who support us and our constituents in our work in Congress. Anne's work on my staff has focused in the area of human rights, and she has poured her heart and soul into this legislation, as well as so many other human rights issues, over the years. She has pleaded the case for persecuted religious believers around the world, bringing people and groups together toward the common goal of speaking out for those who have been silenced because of their faith. When it seemed the darkest, when it seemed there was only a flicker of hope that this legislation would survive, Anne was always there--pushing and pulling, cajoling and inspiring, never giving up. She truly believed that passage of this legislation would help save lives. As I said in my statement on October 10, so many people are responsible for the passage of this legislation. I thank them all for their efforts. They have made a difference for people of faith around the world.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, Virginians were saddened to learn of the recent death of the Honorable D. French Slaughter, Jr. Our colleagues may recall that he represented the 7th District of Virginia, areas of which are now part of the 10th District, which I represent. We don't have many heroes today, sadly, but French Slaughter was a true American hero. He fought in World War II, was wounded and decorated. When his country needed him, he went. He was also a true Virginia gentleman. He served in the General Assembly for 20 years. He was the father of the community college system in Virginia. Mr. Slaughter and I worked together in Congress to help save a number of historic Civil War battlefields. We also worked together to help the Virginia Inland Port in Front Royal, Virginia. Mr. Slaughter was a dedicated public servant. I was proud to call him my friend and to serve in Congress with him. We send our deepest sympathies to his family. I would submit for the Record the obituary notice from the October 4, Washington Post. D.F. Slaughter Dies at Age 73; Congressman From Virginia (By Martin Weil) Daniel French Slaughter Jr., who was elected to Congress four times as a Republican from Virginia's 7th District, which includes parts of the Washington suburbs, died Oct. 2 in a nursing home in Charlottesville. The 73-year-old lawyer, a Culpeper resident, had Alzheimer's disease. Mr. Slaughter was elected to Congress in 1984 and announced in 1991 that he was resigning after a series of mild strokes. The district he represented stretched from Manassas southeast to Fredericksburg and west to Charlottesville. While in Congress, Mr. Slaughter was known for providing residents of his district with a high level of constituent service. During one of his congressional campaigns, a Democrat criticized Mr. Slaughter for maintaining a low profile on Capitol Hill. ``He does what he gets paid for,'' a state Republican official said in his defense, ''and that's why people like him.'' In 1991, after his retirement was announced, another state party official praised his integrity and said that he ``epitomizes what is a real Virginia gentleman.'' While in Congress, Mr. Slaughter was viewed as one of the last Virginia officials who had sprung from the rural, conservative political machine founded by the late senator Harry F. Byrd (D). While serving in the General Assembly from 1958 to 1978, Mr. Slaughter supported ``massive resistance,'' a policy under which many Virginia localities shut down the public schools rather than integrate them. Mr. Slaughter said later that he could not think of specific votes that he would change if he had the chance. He added that he believed ``in equal opportunities for everyone.'' Mr. Slaughter, who generally used his first initial and was known as French, was born in Culpeper. He attended Virginia Military Institute before serving in the Army infantry in World War II, and receiving the Purple Heart. After the war, he graduated from the University of Virginia and its law school and practiced law in Culpeper. While in the General Assembly, he was regarded as a key proponent of the state's community college system. In Congress, he served on the Judiciary, Small Business, and Science, Space and Technology committees. He emphasized issues of significance to the elderly, particularly health care. A Health Care Safety Account bill he introduced would have allowed tax credits for people older than 65 who set up special savings accounts to pay health care expenses. In 1990, he boycotted a speech given to a joint congressional session by Nelson Mandela, now South Africa's president. He said he believed that Mandela refused to rule out violence in the struggle against apartheid. Survivors include a son, D. French Slaughter III, of Charlottesville; a daughter, Kathleen Slaughter Smith, of Gilbert, Ariz.; a brother, Johnson Slaughter, of Houston; and nine grandchildren.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, in my prepared statement, I mention all of the people, many who are on the floor who have really done an outstanding job, and many names are there. I do want to cover some, and I hope if I run out of time, the gentleman may even yield me a minute or two: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for being faithful and always there, always dependable, always willing, never saying no, and for his staff that worked and complied and tried and pushed and pulled. To the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who was the same way, and his staff that were always there, always willing, setting the record, making the hearing. To the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, who came to our gathering and put the prestige of the leadership on this to make sure that this would not fall through the cracks as we get to the end. To the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who was always there on all of these issues. There was no center aisle dividing line. And Carolyn and her staff are always dependable, never saying, ``Well, we may not'' and ``that may be,'' and ``the administration says''; always, always, always there. Senator Nickles, Senator Specter, Senator Coats, my good, close friend Dan Coats, whom I hate to see leaving the Congress, former Senator Bill Armstrong and so many of the other groups. Michael Horowitz who is out of town with his daughter being married. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), Laura, John Hanford and many others who all came together and worked on this. Mr. Speaker, this really is an example of people sending a message. As Abe Rosenthal said in his column last Friday, and I will read it; and Abe Rosenthal, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) said, was always there. I do not know how he got the ink from the New York Times, but always shaking things up to make sure that this would not be forgotten. He said, Very soon, millions of people persecuted, arrested and tortured for their religion will find out whether America has finally confronted persecuting governments with a permanent government searchlight and the threat of penalty. . . .Mouth to ear they will find out in underground Protestant and Catholic churches in China and in prisons run by expert torturers for those refusing to pray in government-run churches. The persecuted will find out in Sudan wilds and deserts where Christians and animist refugees starve and die under attack. They will find out in Pakistani villages where Christian homes have been set afire. Or the village south of Cairo where Coptic Christian clergy are sending frantic word that 1,000 Copts were tortured by Egyptian police. When we do this tonight, I will tell my colleagues that in Tibet, and when I was there last year they told me they listen to Radio Free Asia in Tibet. In Lhasa tomorrow morning, they will know that this Congress, the people's Congress, the people's body, cares about what happens in Drapchi Prison, cares about the Catholic priests who are being persecuted. The Catholic bishops, the Muslims who no one speaks out for in the northern part of the country, the Protestant house churches, all of those people will know. Mr. Speaker, this is a good legislation. I think both sides have taken a lot of good steps. Obviously, perhaps better people, wiser than we, can make it better. If they are, I guess fine. But until that time, I think this is good. I hope it will pass with unanimous consent. But again, on behalf of the voiceless, we have given them a voice, all of those I named and all who are in here on their behalf. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the measure before us, to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2431, the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act. What is before us is not the measure the House passed. It is different. However, I believe it is critical that the Congress pass legislation this year to deal with the issue of religious persecution and I strongly support this measure. I hope you will, too. In his column last Friday in the New York Times, A.M. Rosenthal wrote, Very soon, millions of people persecuted, arrested and tortured for their religion will find out whether America has finally confronted persecuting governments with a permanent government searchlight and the threat of penalty. . . . Mouth to ear they will find out in underground Protestant and Catholic churches in China and in prisons run by expert torturers for those refusing to pray in government-run churches. The persecuted will find out in the Sudan wilds and deserts where Christian and animist refugees starve and die under government attack. They will find out in Pakistani villages where Christian homes have been set afire. Or in the village south of Cairo where Coptic Christian clergy are sending frantic word that 1,000 Copts were tortured by Egyptian police. Rosenthal's words should be taken to heart. I would add my own comments. In Tibet, Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns who are, at this moment, being tortured and beaten in Drapchi prison and the other Chinese-run prisons in Tibet will find out what we do today. In Iran, the families of the two Baha'i men sentenced to death last week and the 36 Baha'i faculty members arrested will know what we do today. In Pakistan, Ahmadi Muslims fearful of their lives will know what we do. And in China, the Muslims being persecuted in Xinjiang Province will hear the result of the vote in the House today. Mr. Speaker, the other body passed this bill, now called the International Religious Freedom Act, by a unanimous vote of 98-0. I'm told the White House supports this measure. It also has the support of a broad coalition of religious and civic groups, including the Christian Coalition, the National Association of Evangelicals, the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference, the National Jewish Coalition, the Anti- Defamation League, the Christian Legal Society, the Traditional Values Coalition, the Episcopal Church, B'nai B'rith, Justice Fellowship, the American Jewish Committee, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the United Methodist Church--Women's Division, and the American Coptic Association. Passing this historic legislation will send a message of hope to millions of suffering people worldwide who are being persecuted for their religious beliefs. Passing this bill will help ensure that eliminating religious persecution becomes a prominent goal of our foreign policy and will help loosen the chains of government oppression endured by many today. This bill meets the goals Senator Specter and I set out to achieve when we introduced the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act in May, 1997. First, we wanted to ensure that the State Department has a permanent mechanism for monitoring this issue and spotlighting it in U.S. foreign policy. Second, we wanted to establish a framework for taking action against countries that persecute people for their faith. Both of these goals are met in this legislation and I pleased that I can strongly support it today. The International Religious Freedom Act contains a number of important provisions: It establishes a 9-member Commission on International Religious Liberty to report annually on religious freedom violations abroad and recommend policy options to the administration. This provision, in my view, greatly enhances the legislation because it helps ensure that this issue will get attention by an independent body of experts and puts pressure on the State Department and the White House to be accountable. It creates an Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Liberty in the State Department to serve as a point person on religious freedom issues. This person would represent the U.S. abroad and help provide expertise and leadership within the Department on this fundamental human rights issue. It provides the President with a list of options from which to choose when imposing sanctions on a country found to be violating religious freedom. Like the House bill, it contains a number of provisions designed to promote religious freedom abroad, such as incentives for foreign service officers who show meritorious service in promoting religious freedom, requiring the creation of a State Department Internet site to promote religious freedom, recommending high-level contacts with religious non-governmental organizations, requiring the State Department to prepare prisoner lists and issue briefs on religious freedom and others. It also includes a provision allowing equal access to U.S. missions abroad for conducting religious activities in places where religious activity is otherwise prohibited. This will help American citizens abroad who desire to worship, but cannot worship safely in local churches and would otherwise have nowhere to go. In places like Saudi Arabia, this is a real problem. The International Religious Freedom Act is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it. Many, many people have worked hard to get this bill where it is today. First, I want to thank my colleagues here in the House, particularly the distinguished Majority Leader Dick Armey, International Relations Committee Chairman Ben Gilman and Chris Smith, Tony Hall, Nancy Pelosi, and Bob Clement for their tireless leadership on and support for this bill and many other human rights issues. I also want to thank members of their staff, Heidi Stirrup and Brian Gunderson in the Office of the Majority Leader; Steve Rademaker and Rich Garon with the House International Relations Committee; Joseph Rees of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights; Bob Zachritz with Representative Hall; and Carolyn Bartholomew with Representative Pelosi and Laura Bryant with Representative Clement for their efforts. I also want to thank Anne Huiskes on my staff for pouring her heat and soul into this bill in the past two years and acknowledge the good work of John Hanford who over the years has committed his life to working on these issues and advocating on behalf of people being persecuted around the world. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of Members of the other body who are to be commended for their leadership in moving this legislation through the Senate. First and foremost, I want to commend and applaud the leadership of Senator Arlen Specter for being out front on this issue and introducing the Senate version of the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act. I also want to commend the distinguished Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott for his commitment to passing religious persecution legislation and Senator Don Nickles and Senator Joe Lieberman, the authors of the International Religious Freedom Act, for their work and leadership. I applaud them for sticking with this issue when many would have given up. I am also extremely grateful for the faithful efforts of Senator Dan Coats who kept his shoulder to the wheel in shepherding this legislation through the U.S. Senate. This bill is a tribute to him. I also want to acknowledge the important work of the staff involved with this measure in the Senate: Gretchen Birkle with Senator Specter, Elayne Petty with Senator Mack, Sharon Payt with Senator Brownback, Steve Moffit with Senator Nickles, Jim Jatras with the Senate Republican Policy Committee, Pam Sellars and Sharon Soderstrom with Senator Coats, Fred Downey with Senator Lieberman, and Bill Gribbin in the Office of the Senate Majority Leader. Finally, I want to thank all those groups who helped generate support for this legislation and who work tirelessly each and every day to bring attention to this issue. My sincere thanks goes out to Michael Horowitz with the Hudson Institute; Chuck Colson and Mariam Bell with Justice Fellowship; Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council; Dr. James Dobson with Focus on the Family; Senator Bill Armstrong; John Carr with the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference; Ari Storch with the National Jewish Coalition; Steve McFarland with the Christian Legal Society; Jess Hordes [HOR-DES] and Stacy Burdett with the Anti- Defamation League; Rabbi David Saperstein with the Religious Action Center for Reformed Judaism; Nina Shea, Paul Marshall and Joseph Assad with the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House; Diane Knippers and Faith McDonnell with the Institute for Religion and Democracy; Mary Beth Markey with the International Campaign for Tibet; Steve Snyder with International Christian Concern; Rich Cizik with the National Association of Evangelicals; Don Hodel, Randy Tate and Jeff Taylor with the Christian Coalition; Dr. Richard Land and Will Dodson with the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission; Rev. Stan DeBoe with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews; Nagi Kheir with the American Coptic Association; Neal Hogan with the Catholic Alliance; Father Keith Roderick with the Coalition for Human Rights Under Islamization and Dr. David Adams with the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. There were many, many others involved. I know I left some out, but I applaud all that has been done on behalf of this measure and this issue. Today is truly a historic day in the Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the International Religious Freedom Act. It will help millions of people around the world.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thought this bill was coming up at a different time, and we checked the cloakroom, and they said there were other bills coming up before. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) asked me to speak on this bill and also to ask for a recorded vote. I am concerned that it was taken out of order in a way that I think was fundamentally unfair, because we checked with the House. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and I are concerned about this bill and the implications that it may have allowing gambling, particularly Indian gambling, to spread around the country. Gambling is spreading throughout the United States at an unbelievable rate, and one way it is spreading is through the speed at which Native American casinos are opening up. These casinos just keep opening up, one after another. Now, today, we are here talking about a bill that would make it easier for tribal recognition. Once the tribes get recognized, we see what happens. It does not take long for Indian gaming to be established, and I think we need to give pause and give a lot more attention to this issue. H.R. 1154, the Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act, established a 3-member commission on Indian recognition, but those 3 commissioners were chosen by the Secretary of the Interior, and that would be without the advice and the consent of the Senate. There would be some real problems. For one, it could politicize the recognition process. Native American groups and the gambling interests could put the pressure on the administration, any administration to appoint the commissioners they want. As gambling is spreading and is bringing about the destruction upon lives and communities, it is bringing with it increased crime, destruction, the breakup of families, corruption and bankruptcies, so much so that we had to appropriate money for more bankruptcy judges, especially in areas with gambling, and increases in the breakdown of the American family. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), I will call for a rollcall vote. But I think this is such an important issue, that I would urge my colleagues not to rush through and allow a bill to pass like this without full and adequate debate. Mr. Speaker, my colleague Representative Christopher Shays asked me to speak on this bill, and he also asked me to ask for a recorded vote, so I want to alert my colleagues that I will be calling for a recorded vote. Mr. Shays and Representative John Shadegg and I are all concerned about this bill and its implications. We believe that this is something we ought to be debating fully, not rushing through. I have a number of concerns with this bill. Gambling is spreading throughout the United States at an unbelievable rate, and one of the ways it is spreading is through the speed at which Native American casinos are opening up. And these casinos just keep opening up, one after another. And now we are here today talking about a bill that could make it even easier for tribal recognition. Once the tribes get recognized, we've seen what happens. It doesn't take long for Indian gambling to be established. I think we need to pause and give a lot more attention to this matter. H.R. 1154, the Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act, establishes a three-member Commission on Indian Recognition. But those three commissioners are chosen by the Secretary of the Interior, and that would be without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. There could be some real problems with that. For one, it could politicize the recognition process. Native American groups and the gambling interests could put the pressure on the Administration to appoint the commissioners they want. As gambling is spreading, it is bringing destruction upon individual lives and communities. It is bringing with it increases in crime and the need for more law enforcement spending, increases in corruption, increases in bankruptcies, so much so that we have had to appropriate money for more bankruptcy judges--especially in areas with gambling, increases in family breakdown and the need for more social services. Gambling is bringing with it addiction, not only impacting adults, but even young people, to the extent that the young people are becoming addicted to gambling at more than twice the rate of that of adults. Mr. Speaker, this issue has far-reaching consequences and there's just too much at stake here for us to be considering this bill under suspension. We need to thoroughly debate this issue and consider all the critical implications, especially with regard to Indian gambling. This issue needs thoughtful consideration, not 40 minutes of debate with no amendments. I would urge defeat of this legislation.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pay tribute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade). I did not know this was taking place. I happened to look at the television in my office. I just wanted to come over and pay my respects. I was a staff member for a Republican Member of Congress years ago, Congressman Biester, and I always admired the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade) then. Then I got a job as congressional relations assistant to Secretary Rogers C.B. Morton. I remember, my first visit here on the Hill was to pay a courtesy call by the office of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) for Mr. Morton, who was then Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Speaker, I have learned a lot from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade), and I have admired him. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade) lived, in some respects, in my congressional district for a long period, in Arlington. Everything the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) said was exactly true. The gentleman has always had a great disposition, and I just want to second literally everything that has been said, but kind of present my body here as a living testimony of my admiration and respect, and look forward to really a good friendship for many, many years to come. May God bless you, Joe.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of our colleagues the following story from the September 22 Northern Virginia Daily honoring the life of Mr. Hugh D. McCormick, a noted lawyer, author and Civil War historian who was also a World War II veteran. Mr. McCormick passed away on Tuesday, September 15, 1998, in Front Royal, Virginia, which is in my district. He was 95 years old. In his book, Confederate Son, Mr. McCormick describes how his father and uncle participated in Pickett's Charge in the Battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War. We send our condolences to Mr. McCormick's widow Virginia H. McCormick and their family. Also included for the Record is a resolution honoring Mr. McCormick which was offered in a special session of the Circuit Court of Warren County, Virginia on September 21, 1998. [From the Northern Virginia Daily, Sept. 22, 1998] ``Confederate Son'' McCormick Given Legal Farewell (By Donna Dunn) Hugh D. McCormick, called a ``true son of the Confederacy,'' was honored Monday by the lawyers and judges he influenced in a career that spanned a half-century. During a special session of Warren County Circuit Court, members of the local Bar Association introduced a resolution praising McCormick, a lawyer who died last Tuesday in Front Royal at age 95. McCormick, who practiced into his 90s and was a Civil War historian, author, World War II veteran and former Town Council member, was remembered for his zest for life. Retired General District Judge John F. Ewell read the association's resolution ``to perpetuate the memory of their departed friend.'' ``We gather to pay our respects to a self-sufficient, goal- oriented man,'' he read. McCormick, born Jan. 14, 1903, in Pittsylvania County, received a bachelor's degree in 1927 and a law degree in 1947 from the University of Virginia. Between college and law school, he worked for McCormick & Co. of Baltimore and served in the Marines in World War II. He practiced law in Front Royal from 1967 to 1995 and served as commonwealth's attorney and town attorney. He also served eight years on the council. McCormick's wife, Virginia McCormick, and son, Hugh D. McCormick Jr., attended the ceremony. The younger McCormick said his father's accomplishments are impressive, but he would have wanted to be remembered for something more. ``He would want to be remembered as honest, hard-working, for his optimism and his enthusiasm for history,'' he said. ``He always tried to show that optimism.'' McCormick remained in good health until just a few months before his death. Mrs. McCormick said she was ``lucky.'' ``How can you grieve for a man who lived 95 years and enjoyed life,'' she said. A past president of the Samuels Public Library, Bar Association and Front Royal Rotary Club, McCormick also organized the First Federal Savings and Loan Association and Peoples Bank of Front Royal. Circuit Judge John E. Wetsel Jr. remembered McCormick ``for his energy and intelligence.'' ``He was literally a son of the South in the best sense,'' he said. McCormick funded a teaching chair for the Civil War Institute at Shenandoah University. He was an active member of John S. Mosby Camp 1237 of Sons of Confederate Veterans and served as its commander from 1962 to 1965. McCormick's father, William Logan McCormick, served in the 38th Virginia Infantry and charged the Union lines with Gen. George E. Pickett at Gettysburg. Circuit Judge Dennis L. Hupp said he met McCormick early in his legal career and found a friend in the older man. ``Hugh McCormick was a real son of the Confederacy and my mother was a true daughter of the Confederacy. When I told him this, he took a liking to me,'' Hupp said. McCormick published his memoirs, ``Confederate Son,'' in 1993 and gave the proceeds to the Civil War Institute. The 176-page book recounts McCormick's family heritage and his own life, including his youth in rural Virginia and success as a professional. Former Front Royal Mayor Robert Traister recalled in the preface of ``Confederate Son'' his first meeting with McCormick. The elderly lawyer's office was at the top of a steep set of stairs. But Traister noticed that a motorized chair was positioned at the bottom--for McCormick, he assumed. After climbing to the top-floor suite, Traister was greeted by McCormick with a firm handshake and a rapid-fire explanation of the lift. ``You should've called on the intercom and I'd of motored you up to the top . . . I keep it there for my elderly clients . . . don't use it myself . . . the walk up here every day is good for my back . . . good for my golf game,'' McCormick told him. Hugh McCormick Jr. said his father left the memoirs as his legacy. ``He said he wanted to leave it so his family would understand his life,'' he said. ``And it's an interesting part of Americana.'' Delivered into this world by a midwife who was a former slave, McCormick respected all people, his son said. ``He liked people and met them wherever they were,'' he said. In the epilogue to ``Confederate Son,'' McCormick shared his philosophy on life: ``Do not fear the future. Whenever a challenge presents itself, pursue it with all of the intelligence and energy at your command. To do so guarantees success in any of its myriad forms. To do less is not only abhorrently wasteful of the human spirit, it is undignified.''