Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to present to the House today H.R. 2169, the fiscal year 1998 transportation appropriations bill. This bill is the product of a bipartisan effort, and we have endeavored to involve the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the ranking member of the subcommittee. Like last year, I hope this bill will have the overwhelming support of the House today. Again this year, the No. 1 priority in developing this bill was maintaining and improving safety. In addition, we have placed a high priority on funding for our Nation's infrastructure. In total, the bill provides $12.48 billion in discretionary budget authority, an increase of $400 million over the 1997 level, and the bill is $10 million over the President's budget request. Outlays mostly needed for transportation infrastructure are up over 4 percent compared to last year. These increases respond to the calls of many Members of this body that sought to increase transportation and infrastructure spending. The bill is $31 million below the subcommittee's allocation for budget authority. On the safety front, the bill raises funding for Federal Aviation Administration operations by over 8 percent, an increase of over $400 million. This level will fund the requested increase of 500 air traffic controllers and 326 additional staff in certification and regulation. The bill also includes 18 initiatives to improve air safety. These initiatives total $153 million and include additional funds for installing airport surface detection systems, automatic alerting systems to prevent runway collisions and approach lighting systems. Additional funds are provided for research into hazardous weather conditions, aircraft safety, and human factors. In highway safety, the bill provides more funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration than the President requested. In fiscal year 1998, a total of $333 million is allocated for NHTSA. This organization does critical work in research and public education to make our highways safer. Earlier advances in reducing highway fatalities in this country have flattened out in recent years, and in some States, Mr. Chairman, fatalities are going back up with the repeal of the national speed limit last year and increased alcohol use. These increases will allow the agency to aggressively work on solving the air bag problem and focus more resources on rising alcohol-related highway fatalities. In addition, the bill also includes $9 million for a new occupant protection grant program. Recognizing the importance of investing in the Nation's infrastructure, the bill increases funding for the Federal-aid highways program to $21.5 billion. This is an increase, Mr. Chairman, of over $3.5 billion from the 1997 enacted level, or an increase of nearly 20 percent. It is a historic high and represents an increase of $1.3 billion over the assumption in the congressional budget resolution. This answers those who say that the appropriations process and the current budgetary treatment of the trust funds cannot provide increases in highway spending. Funding for transit capital grants is increased to $2.5 billion, an increase of $350 million, or 16 percent over the 1997 level. Section 3 discretionary capital grants total $2 billion, an increase of 5 percent or $100 million over the previous year. Funding for transit operating assistance, which the administration proposed to eliminate, is reduced to $200 million but it is $200 million above what the administration had requested. Like the highway program, funding for the transit programs is at an all-time high. Funding for the AIP program is $1.7 billion, an increase of $240 million, or 16 percent. Mr. Chairman, this is 70 percent higher than the budget request of $1 billion. Funding for the Coast Guard totals $3.9 billion, an increase of $116 million over the 1997 enacted level and $21 million above the President's request. The bill fully funds the Coast Guard's drug interdiction program, of which $34.3 million requires the Office of National Drug Control Policy to certify that these expenditures represent the best investment relative to other possible alternatives. Funding for Amtrak, Mr. Chairman, totals $793 million, which is $30 million more than in fiscal year 1997 and also $3.5 million above the administration's request. While the bill increases funding above last year's level for Amtrak and in doing so provides funding stability to the railroad, funding alone is not the panacea for Amtrak's financial problems. Comprehensive legislative reform, including unemployment, liability, contracting and labor reforms, must also occur if Amtrak is to address its financial and operating difficulties. A railroad passenger system is a vital part of a balanced transportation network, and I think most Members of this body want to see Amtrak survive and prosper and thrive and have that opportunity, because with the large country that we have, I think a national rail system is fundamentally important. To that end, the bill establishes an independent commission to conduct an economic assessment of the entire Amtrak system. I regret that the rule does not protect the provisions establishing the commission, and it may be stricken on a point of order. The commission is necessary, since Amtrak's own restructuring efforts have not been as successful as planned and since Congress has mandated that Amtrak continue a number of unprofitable routes. Modeled after the Base Closing Commission, which was set up to recommend which bases to close, this commission would make recommendations on route closings and realignments needed for the survival of a rail passenger system in the United States. Since these determinations would be made by the commission, painful route closure and realignment choices would be less politicized and the recommendations would then be considered by Congress on an expedited basis. Finally, the bill is very clean of extraneous provisions. We have tried hard to work with the legislative committees to ensure their support for the bill. There are no major policy changes or time bombs in the bill. For the surface transportation programs authorized by ISTEA, the bill assumes current law and does not presuppose or prejudge the action of the appropriate legislative committees as they consider the reauthorization of ISTEA. In this way the bill can go forward without delay and without needless controversy. I think it is a balanced bill, it is a bipartisan bill, it is a bill that puts emphasis on our higher responsibility of protecting and enhancing transportation safety. The bill also provides critical investments in our Nation's infrastructure which drives the Nation's economic engine. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] for his cooperation. I would also like to thank the following individuals who assisted in developing the fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. They include John Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, Linda Muir, Ken Marx, and Cheryl Smith with the minority staff. I wish to recognize and thank those associate staff members who supported the Members of this House in the preparation and passage of the fiscal year 1998 Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, H.R. 2169: David Whitestone of my office, Monica Vega-Kladakis of Majority Whip DeLay's office, Connie Veillette of Mr. Regula's office, Steve Carey of Mr. Roger's office, Eric Mondero of Mr. Packard's office, Todd Rich of Mr. Callahan's office, Joe Cramer of Mr. Tiahrt's office, Mark Zeldon of Mr. Aderholt's office, Paul Cambon of Chairman Livingston's office, Marjorie Duske of Mr. Sabo's office, Barbara Zylinski-Mizrahi of Mr. Foglietta's office, Albert Jacquez and Nancy Alcalde of Mr. Torres' office, David Oliveira of Mr. Olver's office, Blake Gable of Mr. Pastor's office, and Paul Carver of Mr. Obey's office. Mr. Chairman, I include the following material for the Record: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY97.000 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY97.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY97.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY97.003 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I have a bill which about 80 Members have cosponsored on both sides of the aisle, called the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act. It is H.R. 1685. Now that the MFN debate has gone, I will now ask Members from both sides to join us. This is not a trade bill. This is a bill which would, among other things, create a new White House position, the director of Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring, who would do a country-by-country report every year on the different persecutions. Mr. Speaker, there is more persecution of people of faith taking place today than any other time in history of our country. It is H.R. 1658, and I would ask Members on both sides to cosponsor the bill so we can pass it before 100,000 churches of all denominations have a prayer service some time in the month of November to pray for the persecuted church around the world. Wolf-Specter ``Freedom From Religious Persecution Act'' creates new white house position--director of the office of religious persecution monitoring The Director would issue an annual report assessing whether Category 1 or Category 2 religious persecution exists in a country. Sanctions--Sanctions would be automatic upon a positive finding by the Director. They would be waivable by the President, subject to a detailed written explanation to Congress and a 45-day notice of the intent to waive. 1. Degree of religious persecution Category One Activity--Religious persecution is ongoing and widespread and includes killing, rape, imprisonment, abduction, torture, enslavement or forced mass resettlement. Persecution is carried out by the government or with the government's support. Category Two Activity--Religious persecution, as defined above, that is not carried out with government support but where the government fails to take serious and sustained efforts to eliminate the persecution. 2. Imposition of sanctions Immediate Sanctions--The bill would ban all exports to foreign government entities that directly carry out acts of religious persecution. There would also be a ban on all goods, products and services that are being used or intended for use directly to facilitate religious persecution. These sanctions would take effect immediately upon identification of the relevant entities and products. Products and entities banned under this legislation are to be defined as narrowly as is practical. Sanctions Subject to Findings--Additional sanctions would also take effect after either 90 days (Category One activity) or 1 year (Category Two activity). U.S. Assistance--The U.S. would cut off all non- humanitarian aid to the persecuting country. Multilateral Assistance--U.S. representatives would be instructed to vote against any multilateral development banks loans to the offending country and to take all necessary steps to ensure that such loans are not forthcoming. WTO Membership--In deciding whether to support a country's membership in the World Trade Organization, the President would be instructed to consider a significant factor whether a country had engaged in religious persecution. Visa Ban--Ban on visas individuals who carry out, order or oversee religious persecution. Asylum for Persecuted Religious Minorities--Asylum proceedings would be improved to ensure expedited, priority consideration for victims of religious persecution. Full Asylum Hearing--Amends ``credible fear'' standard in asylum proceedings to ensure asylum applicants from persecuted communities in Category 1 and 2 countries receive a full asylum hearing. Priority Status--Provides refugees from persecuted communities in Category 1 and 2 countries priority processing status equal to that given to all groups of ``special humanitarian concern'' to the United States. Training--Requires asylum officers and refugee claims adjudicators to undergo training on the nature, severity and location of religious persecution. Sudan Sanctions--The legislation includes immediate sanctions against Sudan, a country where * * *.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I feel more strongly about this issue than any vote I have cast since I have been in this body. I want to thank all of the groups. I wish I can mention all of the names, but I want to thank the Family Research Council, I want to thank the Catholic bishops and the Catholic conference, I want to thank the Christian Coalition, and I want to thank the AFL-CIO for coming together and making this point. I will tell them we have won this debate, we have won it outside of this Chamber, and next year we will win it inside of this Chamber. The American people are with us. The Congress may not be with us, but the people are with us. Why should we support the Solomon resolution? The administration's policy is fundamentally failed. It is not true to American values. I will tell my colleagues it is amoral, and I personally believe that it is immoral. Why? The Catholic priests and bishops that are in jail, some for saying holy communion. The next time my colleagues approach the rail and when the pastor or the priest says we break the bread of the body of Christ, he remembers us and the wine for the blood of the Christ, think of the bishops and the priests that are in jail for doing this, for this very, very thing. There are Protestant pastors that are in jail. None of my colleagues go to house churches when they go there, none of my colleagues visit the prisons. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I were in Beijing Prison No. 1. We met with the underground church. If we can be with a church, my colleagues can be with a church, too. And what about the Buddhists, the Buddhists who have been raped, the nuns? Raped with a cattle prod and tortured? And what about the Moslems? We are a diverse country. There are 80 million Moslems in that country that are being persecuted, and they have more slave labor camps in China then thay had in the Soviet Union when Gulag Archipelago was written by Solzhenitsyn. And they have programs where they shoot prisoners and when they drop they cut their kidneys out and they sell them for 35 to $50,000. They have forced abortions. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I can tell our colleagues we talked to the people where they were told that they were tracked down and women were forced to have abortions. So why is this an immoral policy or at least an amoral policy? Because of those things. Second, the long arm of the Chinese Government has reached into our Government. Charlie Trie, a friend of the President has influenced this policy. Charlie Trie is in Beijing, probably watching this debate as the foreign ministry is watching this debate in Beijing. Where are the Riady family? They have had an influence on this policy. They have with money attempted and have been successful, successful in influencing this Government and, indirectly, this body. And where is John Huang? He will not come forward, and he will not come forward, but after my colleagues cast their vote 6 or 7 months from now the story will come out with regard to the influence of John Huang when he worked for the Government and then when he raised money for the Democratic National Committee. And major companies, read today's Wall Street Journal. Major companies, and I am not going to mention them, I do not want to embarrass anybody or mention any names, have been pressured, pressured with fear of losing business. So this Government has been directly influenced and this Congress has been indirectly influenced by the Chinese Government. I fear what would have happened if the same thing had been done during the 1970's and the 1980's with regard to the Soviet Union. What? Are we giving the Soviet Union MFN? Third, third, in the light of the military buildup the administration's policy is one of appeasement. It is a policy of appeasement that I believe with every fiber of my body. Now the Secretary of State will not like that because she knows better because she lived in Eastern Europe, she saw what communism can do. But let there be no mistake. This Clinton policy is a policy of appeasement. Now do my colleagues remember the debates in the House of Commons when Winston Churchill got up in the 1930's and talked about what was taking place in Nazi Germany. Chamberlain never listened to him, and the House of Commons never listened to him, and finally it was too late and millions of Americans and millions of British died. The same thing is happening with regard to this. We are going through the same policies that Winston Churchill went through. I had a briefing, and not many of my colleagues have had it. I had the briefing from the CIA, I have had the briefing from the DIA, and I have had the briefing from the Office of Naval Intelligence, and I will not say what one, but I said, ``Sir, can you tell me how many Members have had this briefing?'' I wanted him to tell me 25 or 40. He said, ``There were three, and you are the third.'' One is sitting in this Chamber now, and the other one is in the other body. If my colleagues have not had the DIA briefing and the CIA briefing and Office of Naval Intelligence, frankly those colleagues are voting in ignorance because all the material that they told me, and much of what was said on the floor, that I cannot say, really is true with regard to sales, the missiles, with regard to Iran and many of the other things. They are endangering our country, they are endangering our men. Imagine for just 1 minute being a priest, a minister or dissident in jail and having heard that tomorrow morning that the House of Representatives, the people's House, had voted to grant MFN. Can my colleagues imagine how demoralized they would be? The guard will probably come by, and I was in Beijing prison to see the conditions, and I was with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] in Perm Camp 35. There are terrible conditions. Very few people have gone to those places. The guard will probably mock. The guard will say to the four bishops, ``Your American friends forgot you.'' Imagine how it would feel. But on the other hand, imagine hearing the U.S. Congress had voted to deny MFN, and we are not denying MFN, we are sending a message. Can my colleagues imagine how encouraged they would feel? Natan Shcharansky has said he knew that the U.S. people and the Congress and the Government stood with him. Let me just end by turning to my side. They can take care of their problem. We ought not be bailing out this fundamentally corrupt policy of this fundamentally corrupt administration. Vote to send a message to this administration, vote to send a message to the Chinese people, vote to send a message to the dissidents. Be true to American values. Ask, my colleagues, does this policy fit into American values? Be with the American people, 67 to 18. Be on the side of freedom. Do my colleagues remember, those who were here when Ronald Reagan gave the Evil Empire speech? In Orlando, FL, he was criticized by many on that side and many in the press, but it was the right speech, where he stood out with regard to religious freedom and evangelicals. And do my colleagues remember when Ronald Reagan gave his speech at the Berlin Wall? The State Department said, ``Mr. Reagan, don't mention the Berlin Wall,'' and Ronald Reagan said in that speech because he knew what he believed in and he knew the values; Ronald Reagan said: ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down the wall.'' And the wall came down. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the words in the Declaration of Independence, he said, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal and endowed by their Creator, by God, with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those words were not only meant for Virginians, they were not only meant for Americans, they were meant for people in the gulags of China, they were meant for the dissidents, they were meant for the entire world. I beg of my colleagues if they are undecided, I plead with them, support the Solomon amendment so when the priests tomorrow hear, when the bishops tomorrow hear, when the dissidents tomorrow hear, they will know that the people's House has sent a message to the Chinese Government: We will no longer permit this to take place, and I strongly urge the support of the Solomon amendment. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 79 to revoke most-favored-nation status for China. Unconditional MFN forms the backbone of the President Clinton's China policy--a policy which I believe has been a failure. The administration's policy is fundamentally amoral and not true to American values. Why? First, human rights abuses continue and are worsening. They have not improved despite our so-called policy of engagement * * * not that there has been much engagement. Catholic priests and bishops are in jail--more and more go in each day for practicing their faith outside of Government control. Many have been arrested just for giving mass or administering the sacraments. In April, just before the visit to China of the congressional delegation headed by the Speaker and the visit by Vice President Al Gore, the Chinese arrested the bishop of Shanghai, ransacked his house and confiscated all his religious material. Protestant pastors and house church leaders are still being thrown in jail in record numbers. Beatings and torture are routine. Some reports indicate that Christians are being tortured in a prayerful position-- they are forced to kneel in a praying position which they are viciously beaten and their feet are crushed. Buddhist monks and nuns are tortured and killed. Tibet has been plundered. The Panchen Lama has been kidnapped and replaced by a puppet from Beijing. Muslims in the northwest corner of China are being persecuted. All dissidents are behind bars, in exile, in labor camps or under house arrest. The Chinese Government has stifled all dissent. There are more slave labor camps in China than in the Soviet Union when Alexander Solzehnitsyn wrote his famous book ``The Gulag Archipelago.'' The Chinese Government shoots prisoners and takes their kidneys and corneas for transplantation. Forced abortions and sterilizations continue. There is more. The long arm of the Chinese Government has directly influenced the Clinton administration and has indirectly influenced this Congress. Charlie Trie is an Arkansas friend of President Clinton's. He is now in Beijing and doesn't seem to be coming back. He helped raise political contributions and sway policy. Big time. The Riady family left the country after allegations of campaign finance improprieties. They attempted to sway policy. Maybe they did sway it. They surely spent enough money trying. John Huang worked in the Clinton administration and raised money for President Clinton's 1996 campaign. Many think he passed information on to those closest to the Chinese Government. He helped sway policy. Big companies have been silent on human rights, religious freedom and democracy and are being directly pressured by the Chinese Government. These companies are afraid to lose business so they exert pressure on the U.S. political process in favor of American silence on human rights. The Chinese Government bought the world's silence at the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva by doling out lucrative contracts to countries that refuse to support an EU-sponsored resolution condemning China's human rights practices. Imagine if the Soviet Union had tried to exert this kind of influence on our Government. Would we have turned around and given them MFN? Third, the policy the United States is pursuing toward China, in light of China's massive military buildup and weapons proliferation, is one of appeasement. We are closing our eyes just as Neville Chamberlain did in England in the 1930's when faced with another aggressive power. Winston Churchill spoke up in the Parliament, but the Chamberlain government did not listen. Now there is a new bully in town. The Chinese Government is building up its military--some say United States trade and technology are helping provide needed resources. China is selling chemical weapons, missiles, and nuclear technology which could pose a future threat to the United States and its allies. If you did not get the briefing by the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Office of Naval Intelligence--you don't have all the information. I strongly urge all my colleagues to get these briefings. You owe it to yourself and your country to know exactly what China is doing. China sold chemical weapons and cruise missiles to Iran. China sold nuclear technology to Pakistan. China is engaged in a military buildup and becoming a threat to our future security. It is developing ICBM missiles capable of hitting the United States, our allies in Asia, or our military installations in the Pacific. China also purchased 46 American supercomputers which intelligence experts say can be used to design nuclear warheads to put on the long-range missiles. I believe that American men and women may soon be in danger because of our current policy of appeasement toward the Beijing regime. Appeasement didn't work for Neville Chamberlain in the 1930's and it will not work for the United States in the 1990's. MFN is the backbone of a failed policy. A policy of appeasement. A policy that is amoral because it suggests engagement and yet, does not engage. And a policy that is, and will continue to be, dangerous to our national security. What is needed is real backbone, not appeasement. Imagine if you were a priest or pastor who was in jail. You had been beaten or tortured or starved. You had been forced to endure backbreaking labor. Imagine you heard that the United States Congress had again granted MFN to China--imagine how discouraged you would feel. But what if you, a jailed pastor or priest, hear tomorrow on your crystal radio set that the United States House of Representatives, the People's House, voted to deny MFN to China. Wouldn't you feel encouraged? I would and that's why I'm voting for the Solomon resolution. To my colleagues on my side of the aisle. I hope you will vote to deny MFN to China. It is important to be true to American values. It is important to be with the American people who overwhelmingly, in poll after poll, support linking trade to human rights improvements. The most recent poll, a Harris poll released yesterday in Business Week magazine, found that 67 percent of Americans oppose MFN for China. Only 18 percent favor it. A vote against MFN is a vote on the side of the American people. I encourage those on my side of the aisle to be with the legacy of Ronald Reagan who refused to grant MFN to the Soviet Union while it persecuted people of faith. He engaged but he didn't appease. He spoke out for American values and stood with the persecuted when he called the Soviet Union the evil empire and demanded Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. Be on the side of history. Vote to deny MFN to China and send a message to the Chinese Government, to the Chinese people, and to all persecuted people around the world that the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence are for them. These principles of freedom, ``We hold these truths to be self- evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'' apply to all people. Not just Virginians or Americans or Westerners. These rights are for all people, including the people of China. That's the message we would send by voting to deny MFN in the House. Vote ``no'' on MFN for China.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I had the opportunity to address the National Gambling Impact Study Commission's first meeting and I would like to place my remarks in the Record. They follow: Gambling Impact Study Commission Hearing Good morning. I am delighted to be here. As a matter of fact, I can't begin to tell you just how delighted I am. You are about to begin an important journey and one of your first steps will be to prepare a road map to guide you. There are some important things you should know at the beginning and I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak with you. I appreciate your kindness and your attention. I will not take up too much of your time but there are matters of consequence which I must address. The task before you is as important as it is enormous. But your goal is really very simple. Today, when a community, town, city, or even a State is considering the pros and cons of letting some kind of gambling activity start up, they have nowhere to go to obtain reliable, factual, and unbiased answers to their questions. Your job is merely to make that information easily available to them. That's it. Congress has given you 2 years and an adequate budget to uncover, compile, and digest all the available information and I have every confidence that you are up to the task. I hope you will all take a look at Gambling in America. This is the final report of the 1976 Commission on the Review of the National Policy Toward Gambling. This 3-year study, completed over 20 years ago when legalized gambling was in its infancy, was the last time government took a hard look at gambling. This report would be a good starting point for you. In the preface, commission executive director James E. Ritchie concluded that ``we can no longer afford to be ill- informed and complacent about a matter of such manifest national concern.'' Yet today, over two decades later, we are still having difficulty shining the light of the day on this dubious enterprise. Let me say at the outset, I oppose gambling. I think it is anti-family, anti-business and does much more harm than good. I certainly don't want it in my community or in my State and would fight it from coming there with all my energy. But I don't have any right to make that decision for other communities or other places. That's up to the people who live there to decide for themselves. But I'm not asking you to be against gambling. What I do ask, though, and what America demands of you, is to be open minded, fair, undaunted in the pursuit of knowledge based upon solid research and courageous enough to air the truth in the face of what I know will be enormous pressure from special interests and ``spin artists.'' In your search for information, I hope you will be out on the road. I urge you to hold hearings all across America. The answers to your questions do not lie here in Washington but in the gambling centers of Las Vegas, Atlantic City, and Biloxi; and in regions which are learning to live with casinos and their effects such as New Orleans, St. Louis, and Milwaukee. You should travel to the small towns of Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri to see what river boat casinos are doing to local economies. You should visit States hosting tribal casinos and States which have been recent battlegrounds in the debate over allowing gambling to expand within their borders such as New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida. These are the places where you will meet the people who will help you form your conclusions and where you should set up shop. I do want to share with you a few observations. I first became interested in this issue some years ago when there was an effort to bring river boat casino gambling to my State of Virginia. Truthfully, I didn't think it was a good idea but I wasn't sure. And there were no good answers to my questions. The preponderance of information that was available was provided by gambling interests which I found suspect and of dubious reliability. And as I dug further into this issue, I was confronted with an army of high priced advocates representing gambling interests. No one was there to represent the people who live in the area and their families. As a matter of fact, this was about the same time Disney was trying to build a new theme park in my congressional district. This was a high profile and very controversial initiative and the joke around town was that if you were a lawyer or lobbyist this was ``the'' place to find work. Yet, I happened to read in the paper that Disney was out-spent by a good margin by the pro-river boat gambling interests lobbying Virginia's General Assembly. Again, while no one was there representing the people who live and work in the area, gambling interests were pouring money into their effort to get a toe hold in Virginia. And no wonder. Once gambling sets up shop, it's almost impossible to get rid of it. In fact, there's a history of things going the other way. Communities begin to rely on their share of the revenues and local politicians cave in to demands from the gamblers for longer hours, more facilities and more tables or slots or wheels. And they have the money to do it. This is about a $500 billion per year industry with profits of $50 billion. That's billion with a ``B.'' Too much of this money is spent in the high stakes game of influencing lawmakers and other government officials. According to the Federal Elections Commission, during the 1995-96 election cycle, the casino gambling industry poured more than $4.4 million into federal political contributions including $2.6 million in ``soft money'' to the Democratic and Republican parties. State and local campaigns, too, are awash in gambling dollars. Some $100 million over the past five years has gone to influence state legislatures around the country. The more I worked on this issue, the more concerned I became. All the evidence I could gather pointed to the conclusion that gambling was harmful to people and to communities. It led to crime, to corruption, to cannibalization of existing business and it caused social ills. The response to my concerns from gambling interests was to note that all my evidence was anecdotal and gambling really jacked up the local economy and they were working to solve whatever problems gambling might contribute to--such as addiction. I felt their response was unsatisfactory and introduced, with others, legislation to create this commission which, I believed, would quickly pass. Who could be against taking a look at the impact gambling might be having on America? The answer, I swiftly learned, was the well-heeled and determined industry itself. Fronted by a virtual army of well paid and well connected Washington lobbyists with access to almost every door in this town, they fought this legislation every step of the way. First they tried to kill it in the House and then the Senate. Then they tried to de-fang the commission by denying it the power to subpoena relevant documents and when that failed they worked to have gambling proponents appointed to this body--to stack the commission, if you will. But I believe you are up to this task. I am counting on you to do a good job. America is counting on you. One of the first hurdles you must overcome is that the gambling industry has done such a good job of selling themselves as a good neighbor, a creator of revenue and jobs. They pay taxes and governments get hooked on the revenue. Politicians are reluctant to walk away from this money that feeds government spending. But this is a problem, not a solution. As Robert Goodman asks in the preface of his book, The Luck Business, ``Do we really want a government so dependent on gambling that they are forced actively to promote an activity that takes disproportionately from those who can afford it least, does the greatest damage to existing economies and can be highly addictive?'' No, I do not believe we do. Various studies indicate that perhaps 30 percent of all gambling revenue comes from that 5 percent or so of problem gamblers addicted to its lure. Even though the gambling industry claims to care about this addiction problem, new games and new attractions are always coming on-line which further sharpen the craving of compulsive gamblers drawing them deeper into the web of self destruction. After you complete your work, I think you will agree. Let me close with this. As you begin your search for truth and fairness you will not have to look far to find those who will present the gambler's views. You will find their arguments and presentations, on the surface, most compelling and easy to go down; they have the money to hire the very best to do this sort of thing. I hope you will look beyond the glossy presentations; ask for the research information you need and don't be put off by dodges that it isn't available, isn't relevant or you really don't need it. You do. Stick to your guns and use your subpoena power. You must avoid being led down the wrong path in your quest for the truth. I predict you will need to search much harder to find witnesses and experiences depicting the downside of gambling. How are you going to find the theater owner who went out of business when the casino opened up? How eager to testify will be the woman whose husband became addicted to gambling, squandered their life savings, ran up incredible debts and then, when he could bear no more, took his own life? The father of recently slain Sherrice Iverson, the 7-year old whose strangled body was found in a Nevada casino restroom, after she had been allowed to roam unsupervised for long periods while he played the tables, might not be a willing witness. It may be difficult to persuade an indicted state legislator to sit before you to relate how he sold out those he represented for an under-the-table payoff from those wanting to bring a casino to town. Will Missouri's former House Speaker of 15 years who resigned in the face of a federal investigation into financial ties with casinos be eager to tell his story? Two prominent Kansas City clergy who resigned their pastorates recently due to problem gambling may be reluctant to tell their stories. According to Kansas City Reverend Ben Skinner, one stole $60,000 from his congregation and lost it at the casinos and the other was discovered gambling while disguised in a wig and glasses. They may not be eager to meet with you. But too many people with stories like these are out there and you need to hear from them. I hope you do. I wish you well and pray for your success. Thank you.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our former colleague, the gentleman from Missouri, Bill Emerson, who passed away a year ago after a long and valiant battle. Bill was known for his bipartisanship, his ability to bring people together to work on hunger. Bill and I and the gentleman from Ohio, Tony Hall, and a few others were in a small covenant group that met every Tuesday in the Capitol chapel to talk with each other, to pray with each other, and to support each other. I was privileged to know Bill. He was a person of character, a person of courage, a person of integrity. Bill loved history more than anyone else that I knew, and Bill loved to talk about Lincoln; Bill loved to talk about Winston Churchill. I can see where Bill is; in heaven where Lincoln and Churchill and Bill are talking together, and Lincoln is talking about how it was in the 1850's and 1860's, Churchill is talking about how it was in World War I and World War II, and Bill Emerson is talking about how it really was in the 1970's the 1980's and the 1990's. Bill made every effort to live by the principles of Jesus, and he set an example for this entire Congress to live by. Every time I see the gentlewoman from Missouri, Mrs. Jo Ann Emerson, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Kanjorski, and the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, who he rode with, and many others, I think of Bill.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island. We spoke to one youngster who was there who had his ear cut off, that they cut off his ear; and now we spoke to a mom, a mother, who had three children, and they were all, all, missing. One had been killed in Santa Cruz, another had been taken away, and another had been taken away several nights just before we got there. So the Kennedy amendment is a good amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I was in my office, I saw the debate that was taking place, and I wanted to make a comment in strong support of the Kennedy amendment. I had the opportunity, as the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] did at Christmastime, I visited East Timor in January of this year. Members ought to know Bishop Belo, who got the Nobel Peace Prize because of the nomination of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] and others in the Congress. We visited Bishop Belo. On the Island of East Timor, there have been over 200,000 people killed in the last 20 years. If Members were to extrapolate that to the United States, I do not know what that would mean, would it mean 60 million killed or something like that? It is an unbelievable amount. We met with Bishop Belo. We also were followed by the military and their people, but we went out in the field and talked to a number of people. We went to the Santa Cruz Cemetery, where the massacre took place. For Members who did not follow that massacre, the Indonesian army opened up fire and in cold blood killed these people at the Santa Cruz Cemetery. We also talked to young people. First, they were afraid to speak, then we got close to them. They started to talk and told us they were afraid. The very nights we were there at 2 o'clock in the morning the Indonesian military would come into their homes and take the young people away. They would not allow them to be visited by their moms and dads. I personally believe, and this gets a little controversial, I believe that Web Hubbell was hired by the Indonesian Government and we now later found out that Web Hubbell, after he was hired by the Indonesian Government, went to East Timor. East Timor is not the garden spot that one goes to to sit on the beaches. I believe that maybe the administration's policy changed. The Kennedy amendment is the right thing to do. When we pass this amendment, it will send a message back to the Indonesian Government, who we have a good relationship with and we want to continue to have a good relationship with, but that we care. Bishop Belo will be in the United States next week. I think we should pass this amendment. I did not want the time to go by without urging strong support for the Kennedy amendment. Frankly, if it were defeated, the message that that would send to the people of East Timor, 500,000 left, 200,000 killed, military occupation, up to maybe 28,000 military people all over the island. Last, there were elections 1\1/2\ weeks ago. Up to 41 people were killed. I have been urging, as I know the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] and others feel, that this administration should appoint a special envoy. We saw that they appointed a special envoy to Cyprus, which is very good. They should appoint a special envoy here and do something about it. I want to commend the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy], I want to thank him for taking the time to go over there at Christmas, and I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage all Members of this body to read the poll in today's Wall Street Journal. By an overwhelming margin, 67 percent of Americans polled by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal said that the United States should demand improvements in China's human rights if China wants to continue its current trading status of MFN; 67 percent. Among men, the percentage who favor human rights improvement before MFN was renewed was 63 percent. Among women, the percentage was a staggering 70 percent. And I say regarding my side, we are concerned about the gender gap. If we want to see a gender gap, 70 percent of the American women favor linking trade and MFN. No matter whether we break it down according to party affiliation, income, or age, the results are still the same: 60 to 70 percent favor demanding improvements in China's human rights record before renewing MFN. Republicans polled, 61 percent; Democrats, 73 percent. Of those earning $50,000 or more, 63 percent favor human rights; 76 percent of those earning less than $20,000 favored human rights improvements. The American people want the Congress to send a message about human rights. They want to send a message about the Catholic priests, the Protestant pastors, the Buddhist monks, and the Muslims being persecuted. I urge this Congress to send a message to the Chinese people. Vote to deny MFN.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith- Oberstar-Hyde-Barcia amendment. I also want to make it clear, as Members who are listening, I favor family planning, so I think one can strongly favor family planning and be for the Smith amendment. Also, this just merely returns us back to the policies of previous Congresses. This is not something dramatic or new, it just previously goes back to where we were, and more importantly, this is the House of Representatives. This returns us to the position of the American people. The American people, if they were voting today in the Congress, would clearly support the Smith amendment. Third, this is about China. This is about China. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]) and I were in China together where we talked to people where we had cases of women who were literally tracked down in villages and forced to have an abortion. So this is about China, and it is about forced abortion with regard to China. Lastly, under the Smith amendment, I believe as someone who strongly favors family planning, there will be more money for family planning, and I strongly urge Members on both sides to support the Smith amendment.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on behalf of millions of people of faith around the world who are living in fear of religious persecution. In order to draw attention to this modern day tragedy, a number of Members, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] and others, have introduced the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, which has over 40 cosponsors. I urge and beg my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and send a message around the world that America will not be silent on this issue. The bill addresses the great untold human rights story of decades, persecution of peoples of faith around the world, Christians, Buddhists , Muslims, the Bahai faith. Slavery thrives in Sudan and this Congress does not a darned thing about it. I hear Members talk about it, they give speeches about it, but, frankly, we do nothing about it. I urge my colleagues to do something about it. Cosponsor this bipartisan bill which has 40 cosponsors and let us pass it whereby we can help people of faith around the world. The bill does a number of things. It focuses on persecution; abduction, enslavement, imprisonment, killing, forced mass resettlement, rape, or torture. It establishes an office in the White House to monitor religious persecution and requires the director to report to Congress whether foreign governments actively participate or fail to take steps to curtail religious persecution. It shuts of aid and requires U.S. executive directors to vote against multilateral development bank loans to persecuting countries. And it improves refugee and asylum procedures to ensure those seeking refuge from persecution are not turned away from a country which has historically welcomed religious victims. The time has come for Congress to take a stand. Mr. Speaker, our bill would ensure that we take a new approach to this growing problem--an approach that says we will no longer be silent when regimes terrorize or allow terror against its religious believers. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I did not really come over to talk about the legislation. I came over to personally thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] for his leadership on this issue. There is a major drug problem in the country. I learned about it when I went into the high schools as I do and listened to the young people in my district. I learn what to do about it when I listen to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] here in Congress. Because of the effort of the gentleman from Ohio, we have been able to put together a number of coalitions in our district that have made a difference. I just want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] and let him know that there will be many moms and dads and many young people who will be saved from the drug use problem for many, many years to come. It will be because of the leadership that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] exercised and they may never know why it was done. I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] and urge all Members in this body, on both sides of the aisle, if they have not focused on the problem, I guarantee there is a major, major drug problem in Members' congressional districts. It may be in the most wealthy portion of a Member's district. I urge my colleagues to use this legislation to put together a coalition to do something about it. I again thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman]. I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 956, the Drug Free Communities Act of 1997. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, which I believe will help reduce teenage drug use and abuse. In my congressional district, I have been active in promoting the creation and maintenance of community antidrug coalitions. Over the last year, I have sponsored two districtwide conferences and workshops to help implement the community coalition concept. These coalitions are groups of individuals from cities, towns, communities, and neighborhoods who work to reduce drug use by children and to keep their neighborhoods drug free. H.R. 956 has been endorsed by numerous antidrug organizations, including: PRIDE Parent Training, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Drug Abuse Resistance Education America [DARE], and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. There are five main features of this legislation: First, in order to receive Federal support, a community must first demonstrate a comprehensive, long-term commitment to address teenage drug use through grassroots participation at the local level. Second, a community must demonstrate that its antidrug coalition is an ongoing concern that also has non-Federal financial support. Third, a community must have a good system to evaluate the success of its antidrug coalition efforts. Fourth, the coalition must be run by local leaders familiar with local problems and needs. Fifth, community coalitions will be eligible for Federal matching grant funding if they meet the above criteria. I know this legislation will prove helpful in the efforts of communities across America to fight the scourge of drugs. Teenage drug use and abuse has been skyrocketing and I believe H.R. 956 is an important step in helping to educate children about drugs and keeping communities drug free. I thank Congressman Portman for his leadership on this matter and for bringing this important legislation to the floor today.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act. This bill, which will be introduced in an identical format in the Senate, is bipartisan and will represent, what I hope will be a fundamental departure from ``business-as-usual'' human rights policy. The persecution of people of faith is the great untold human rights story of the decade. With the end of the cold war came freedom for millions living under Communism in the former Soviet Union, Central Eastern Europe. During those years, many people of all faiths worked together with the Jewish community on behalf of those suffering persecution at the hands of the Communist dictators. The Jewish community led the fight and the Christians, though sometimes late, raised their voices and demanded justice for their faithful. But, with the dawn of freedom came a feeling that the problem had been solved. Sadly, it has not. Millions of people of all faiths live in daily fear of secret police, vigilantes, state repression, or discrimination. Religious persecution--and especially the persecution of Christians-- did not dissipate with the cold war. It has persisted and accelerated. It has gotten worse while the world and the United States have turned their efforts elsewhere. A few groups have tried to keep the flame flickering. I am grateful for their work and efforts to document this problem. My thanks go out to the Catholic Church, Nina Shea with the Puebla Program of Freedom House; Michael Horowitz with the Hudson Institute; John Eigner and all those at Christian Solidarity International; Steven Snyder with International Christian Concern; John Hanford and with Senator Lugar and his associates; Voice of the Martyrs; Open Doors; Diane Knippers with the Institute for Religious and Democracy; Paul Marshall, author of ``Their Blood Cries Out''; and many, many others. In the House, individuals like Chris Smith, Tony Hall, Tom Lantos, and Nancy Pelosi and others have long been champions of religious freedom. But generally the world has been deaf. U.S. policy does not reflect an understanding of the seriousness and intensity of this human tragedy. We have turned away while 1.5 million--Christians and Muslims--have been killed in Sudan. Millions of house church Christians in China are forced to risk their lives and their freedom to worship in secret to keep their faith independent of government control. Christians in Pakistan are having a difficult time and so are the Coptic Christians in Egypt. Tibetan Buddhists have seen their holy places destroyed and their religious leaders imprisoned, tortured, raped and beaten. Bahai's are executed in Iran. Muslims in Sudan are suffering. We cannot be silent any longer. When we come to the defense of the ``least of these,'' those who are persecuted for their religious beliefs, we raise the comfort level for all who are persecuted by dictators. When we speak for Christians, we also speak for Muslims. When we speak for Jews, we also speak for Bahai's. We are speaking for all of whatever belief. This legislation tracks the resolutions and bill language passed in the 104th Congress and calling for action. The American Christian community has recognized these facts and begun calling for action on behalf of the millions of Christians who are being persecuted on account of their beliefs. It has joined forces with the Tibetan community and others to urge the United States to do more, to speak out in defense of the ``least of these.'' The United States must take a new approach to this growing problem-- an approach that says we will no longer be silent when regimes terrorize or allow terror against its religious believers. The bill does a number of things: It focuses on persecution--abduction, enslavement, imprisonment, killing, forced mass resettlement, rape, or torture. It establishes an Office in the White House to monitor religious persecution and requires the Director to report to Congress on whether a country has category 1 persecution--government involvement--or category 2 persecution--no government involvement but lack of government action to stem persecution. We ask that the Director look at persecution of Tibetans, Bahai's, and Christians--the three groups which were the focus of resolutions--but encourage the Director to examine persecution of vulnerable communities whenever it occurs. It shuts off aid to category 1 and 2 countries and requires U.S. executive directors to vote against multilateral development banks against loans to persecuting countries. It improves refugee and asylum procedures to ensure those seeking refuge from persecution are not turned away from a country which has historically welcomes religious victims. Finally, and I want to emphasize this point, the bill imposes immediate and tough sanctions on the Government of Sudan until it ceases all religious persecution. The sanctions prescribed in this bill are virtually identical to those imposed on South Africa in the anti- apartheid act of the 1980's such as ban on flights, ban on investment, and a ban on imports. Though its difficult to quantify human suffering, after having traveled to Sudan three times since 1989, I can say with some experience that the persecution occurring there is some of the worst I've ever seen. Slavery, forcible conversion, the use of food as a weapon, torture, kidnapping of children. It's time the United States singled this country out as an example of one of the most egregious violators of human rights in the world. This bill is not intended as a panacea. The international community, the President, and the Congress must remain vigilant and speak out on individual cases. This bill, is intended to increase the priority given to this issue in our foreign policy and put the persecutors on alert. The United States will no longer acquiesce. Jackson-Vanik was the movement that crystallized concern in the 1980's on behalf of those suffering persecution in the Soviet Union. I am hoping that this bill will be its counterpart for the 1990's. It's an important and vital first step. We have 25 original bipartisan cosponsors in the House and we expect this bill to pass and to result in real action. I want to thank all those who worked to put this bill together including Anne Huiskes on my staff; Bill Morley and Gretchen Birkle on Senator Specter's staff; and Grover Joseph Rees and Dorothy Taft on Representative Chris Smith's staff. I also want to thank those outside groups who have worked on this bill including Michael Horowitz with the Hudson Institute, Heidi Stirrup, Christian Coalition; Will Dodson, Southern Baptist Convention; Will Nance, Prison Fellowship; Melissa McClard, Family Research Council; Nina Shea, Puebla Program; Father Keith Roderick; Dr. Whalid Phares; Ann Buwalda, Just Law, David Adams, Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod; and the many others who have helped us craft this bill. Their efforts and input are greatly appreciated.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the body and of all Members an issue with regard to most-favored-nation trading status, and we just got a call from the White House saying that the President in what he called the opening firing shot is expected to announce today that they will renew favorable trade benefits for China, most-favored-nation trading status for China. Mr. Speaker, over the weekend I happened to have the opportunity, somebody gave me the film that was put out by the Boeing Co. showing their lobbying effort on this whole issue of MFN. After watching the film I was somewhat sickened to see that all the emphasis was on the question of dollars and selling things and no emphasis, not even a little bit, on the question of human rights and religious freedom. So today I am sending a letter, and I am going to read the letter that I am sending to the chairman and chief executive of the Boeing Corp., Mr. Philip Condit with regard to after watching the film that they are promoting around the country in support of MFN, and here is the letter that I am sending to Mr. Condit today. ``Dear Mr. Condit, I recently watched the Boeing video series on China which portrays the long and profitable relationship that your company has developed with the Chinese. As one who has, for years, been concerned about repressed people in countries around the world; from Romania to Russia, China, East Timor and others, urging their governments to adopt a policy of basic regard for human rights and individual freedom, I respectfully wish to comment on what I saw in the video. ``I mean no personal criticism in any of my comments. I strongly believe that you are a good and decent person as are your board members and top management. My purpose is not to condemn but only to present to you a different view of this issue--a look through the eyes of someone with a different perspective. ``As I watched in the video,'' put out by the Boeing Corp., ``some of the meetings and events which included Premier Li Peng, it was hard for me to forget that it was he,'' Li Peng, ``who ordered the 1989 brutal crackdown and arrest of the dissident students at Tiananmen Square, some of whom are imprisoned still today.'' Parenthetically, I visited Beijing Prison No. 1 where I saw 40 Tiananmen Square demonstrators who were arrested by Mr. Peng who are still in jail working on socks which were meant for export to the United States. I wondered if anyone from Boeing thought about that. As I watched former Secretary of State Kissinger in the film; Mr. Kissinger is speaking to a Chinese group in the film, ``As I watched former Secretary of State Kissinger address the group and observe that America's `national style' has a missionary aspect of which he did not favor, I thought he was, in a sense, apologizing for or even diminishing our Nation's zeal to secure basic human rights and freedoms for all men and women--to come to the defense of the little guy. Perhaps I misinterpreted his remarks, but that is how they seemed to me. And I wondered if he or others listening remembered the Chinese Government's organ transplant program where prisoners are executed and their healthy organs are harvested for sale even before the bodies have time to cool. ``During the cruise down the Yangtze River,'' in the video again, ``did anyone remember the Catholic bishops and priests imprisoned for decades simply for living their religion? Do you suppose the Chinese Government policy of slamming shut the doors of house churches came to mind? You do know that house churches crop up because free and open worship is banned. People come together to worship in secret because there is no other way. ``Was Harry Wu's name mentioned? Jailed for 17 years for exposing China's terrible human rights record, Mr. Wu was tossed out of the country. Later, as a U.S. citizen traveling on a U.S. passport, he was again jailed on specious charges. Was there concern over how American citizens can be treated by the Chinese Government--much less their own people?'' And watching the video put out by Boeing, I note that there was a note of pride in Boeing's relating its company's efforts working with Li Peng, again who was the butcher of Beijing and his regime in securing 1996 most-favored-nation trading status for China. ``Could one sense a rush of confidence in the air as Boeing's plans for dealing with the new administration and the new Congress to again prevail on the question of 1997 MFN were unveiled. ``I personally,'' Mr. Condit, ``looked in vain for even a hint of embarrassment as your spokesman talked of Boeing, in order to bury those in the China MFN debate who wonder about human rights, again signing on with the same folks who tried to sell assault weapons and even shoulder held missiles to LA street gangs. ``And as Boeing informed the video audience,'' which was quite shocking when they said, and I quote, 737's, ``when their 737's, 747's, 757's and 767's flew to China, they were just 'coming home,' because so much of each plane had been manufactured there, was I the only one who wondered about the American men and women--moms and dads--who no longer have a job and about the additional jobs that are going to be lost in the United States? ``I think it is good that Boeing has developed such a solid and profitable relationship with China. It certainly offers you an opportunity to address the concerns of the American people--indeed the concerns of all freedom loving people around the globe--in your meetings and gatherings with the Chinese. And I wonder, is there not an obligation for those of you who run Boeing to think about these things, and maybe to speak out? ``If, as so many who favor most-favored-nation trading status for China argue, free trade provides a forum for dialog and discussion for them to learn about democracy, self-determination and freedom, who is to conduct the dialog and discussion if not those involved in the trade?'' That is Boeing. ``Reasonable men and women can differ over issues. My wish here has been to present a differing perspective for your consideration.'' And then I close with this request, and, Mr. Condit, ``In our own country,'' Mr. Condit, ``as you drive past a church, I hope you will think about the Chinese Catholic bishops and priests and Protestant pastors who have been in prison and tortured for their faith. When you drive by a mosque, think about the Moslems who are being persecuted in the northwest part of China. When someone speaks of the beauty of Tibet, please think about the Buddhist monks and nuns who have been killed for their faith and their temples destroyed. When you hear of Solzhenitsyn's book, `Gulag Archipelago,' I hope you will remember the political and human rights activists such as Wei Jingsheng who languish in China's logai because of their desire for freedom and liberty that Thomas Jefferson wrote so eloquently on in our Declaration of Independence. ``Thank you. Best wishes to you, to Boeing and to your employees. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf.'' I hear all the companies and in the Boeing articles that I read, that I will submit in the Record of their major lobbying efforts. In fact, there was an article that I will submit for the Record entitled ``New China Lobby Is Big Business.'' No one talks about human rights. In the video you never heard anything about human rights. In order to sensitize the Congress and not the American people because the Members should know that in the latest surveys done, the last two surveys on this issue, 60-some percent of the people of the United States felt that we should take away MFN and that human rights should be important, whereas only 21 percent thought of the other side. So the American people are where we always know they always have been, standing for freedom of religion and press and all those things. But where does the business community and where does Boeing stand? This picture here was presented in a testimony to a Senate committee, Foreign Relations, on May 13 of this year of 1997. This is a picture of a nun. Her name is Tsering Lhamo. This is a nun, the person testifying went on to say, who was tortured in Tibet when she was 19 years old. She took part in a nonviolent demonstration for Tibetan human rights in Llasa. She spent 3 years in a prison where she was repeatedly tortured, particularly with electric cattle prods, which are manufactured purely for human torture. I have seen those that have been smuggled out of Tibet and have held them in my hand, an American cattle prod that might be used by a rancher in the State of Montana, is this large, and this person indicated how large, and it is for whacking the back of a steer. These are about this big, and he again showed the size, and you can see that they are just used to torture human beings. She was raped with a cattle prod, and she had it shoved in her mouth. She is now dying of the effects of the torture. And then it ends by saying, U.S. humanitarian aid has been brought in to help her and she is doing better. So when we talk in terms of MFN, which is most-favored-nation trading status for China, will the people of Boeing think in terms of the individuals that are being tortured in Tibet and the monks and the nuns that are being killed in Tibet and how many have been imprisoned? I hope so. I hope so. And I hope President Clinton will also think in terms of them as he makes the feeble argument for granting MFN again. I now put up another photo, and I would ask people that are supporting MFN to think in terms of this photo. In China, they have an organ donor program, or what they do is they take prisoners, some who have done bad things and others who have not, out and they shoot them. This is a picture of what they do. They tie them up, they shoot them, and after they die, they then take their kidneys out and they sell them for transplants. Doctors are there on the scene. The kidneys are immediately taken out, and we even have one report where kidneys were taken out even before the man died. They are then harvested for transplantation and for sale to those in the West. So when we think of MFN, most-favored-nation, trading status for China, think in terms of these men who are shot and then their kidneys are taken for sale for sometimes up to $35,000 to $50,000. This is a picture of a slave camp. I am sure everyone knows, but if they do not, the Members of this body should know that there are more gulags, slave camps in China than there were in the Soviet Union. Now, we all know, as I have referred to in the letter to Mr. Condit, that Solzhenitsyn wrote the book Gulag Archipelago, which is an amazing book that most Americans read, it sensitized to the United States, the people in the West, what was going on. Mr. Speaker, I have been to one of those gulags, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I visited Perm camp 35 in the foothills of the Ural Mountains during communism where we interviewed Scharansky's cellmate and many other people. It is a very unpleasant place. Well, we should know, all who favor granting MFN, that there are more gulags, slave camps, in China than there were in the Soviet Union. Of course, Ronald Reagan, to his credit, and a bipartisan group of Republicans and Democrats, did not give MFN to the Soviet Union because of what they were doing, but we are going to give it, some people hope, and I hope we do not, to China. But as we do, it says the slaves, in a chemical processing room of a hide and garment factory, and the chemical eats into their naked bodies. In fact, as there are people in the West, there are people that are watching this event who are wearing some clothing or have some item, they do not know about it, that has been made by slave labor and people that are in gulags. So as people are anxious to give MFN to China, they ought to think about the thousands, the millions, in the Chinese gulags. I have a book here that has just been published called ``In The Lion's Den'', a shocking account of the persecution and martyrdom of Christians today by Nina Shea. In it she documents a lot of the activities that are taking place in China. So as we are anxiously awaiting, the Clinton administration at 2:15 today and others in Congress that are going to give MFN to China, think about what this book said and what Nina Shea says. In China today there are more Christians in prison because of religious activities than in any other Nation in the world. Mr. Speaker, Protestants are arrested and tortured for holding prayer meetings, teaching and distributing Bibles without the state approval. Roman Catholic bishops and priests are in prison for celebrating mass and administrating the sacraments without official authorization. I would urge that, when Members in our country approach the communion table to take the sacraments, whether it be this Sunday or whatever Sunday it is or whatever opportunity, as they approach the communion table to take the bread and the wine in this country, they think in terms of the men, Catholic priests, Catholic bishops, Protestant pastors who have been in prison for serving holy communion in China; and then say, do we really want to give this country and this government the most-favored-nation trading status. Think of this when approaching the communion table, do we want to do it when there are priests and bishops and ministers in jail for trying to do the same thing that everyone in this country takes for granted. Nina Shea went on to say, while China's closed penal system makes it difficult to obtain accurate numbers, Freedom House has a list of names of about 200 Christian clergy and church leaders who are in prison or under some form of detention or restrictions in mid-1996 because of religious activities. There are thought to be thousands of Christians now in prison for their faith in China's religious gulag. In several recent dragnet operations, hundreds of Christians were arrested. Some are serving sentences up to 12 years or more for, quote, counterrevolutionary charges. But the fact is, they were incarcerated for practicing their faith. Many prisoners, she goes on to say, are forced to work in the laogai, that is the gulag, the reform labor camps where prisoners must toil and slave for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week in automotive and chemical factories, brick-making plants, mines, and on farms. According to American Christians working in China in 1996, 1996, last year, the record that we are basing whether we give MFN to China, according to most Americans, Christians working in China in 1996, it has been, and I quote, the most repressive period for Catholics and Protestants since the late 1970's. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why. Why would we give most-favored- nation trading status to China when it has been the most repressive period in 1996. It did not say 1976, it said 1996. That was last year. We did not grant it to the Soviet Union; we did not grant it to the Eastern Bloc nations. Ronald Reagan, God bless him, even signed a bill to take it away from Ceausescu in Romania, and the Clinton administration and some in Congress want to give it to China when it has been the most repressive year for Christians. Nina Shea went on to say, Catholics who choose to stay loyal to the Vatican and Protestant Christians who meet in unauthorized underground or house churches encounter severe persecution, including fines, arrest, and imprisonment. She says, one of the most well-known house churches in the country, that of pastor Allen Yuan, in Beijing was closed in the fall of 1996. The United States-based dissident journal China Focus quotes Pastor Yuan as saying, and I quote, we have only one room and we do not even have any property, but the authorities still look at us as if we are monsters. All they want is to control us. The popular pastor served 22 years in China's laogai for his faith. The Far Eastern Economic Review reported on June 6, 1996, that police have destroyed at least 15,000 unregistered temples, churches, and tombs between February and June 1996 in Zhejiang Province alone. Let me just go back so we can think in terms of that, when we all get so excited about MFN and the President rolls out the red carpet for the Chinese butchers who will be visiting the country later on, we will go slowly, now. He says that the police had destroyed at least 15,000 unregistered temples and churches and tombs between February and June 1996 in only one province. What is taking place in the other provinces? Victims of the crackdown are legion. At least three evangelicals were killed by Chinese authorities during the first quarter of 1996, according to reports from the Voice of America, and Compass Direct. One Zhang Xiuju, a 36-year-old woman, on the night of May 26, 1996, she was dragged out of her home by police in Hunan Province and beaten to death, beaten to death. Do we think Ronald Reagan would have given the Chinese MFN? I cannot say whether we would have or not, but I do know that Ronald Reagan, who gave the famous speech in Orlando, the Evil Empire speech where he denounced the Soviet Union and talked about spiritual values and stood on behalf of those who were being persecuted in the Soviet Union, those of the Jewish faith and many other faiths and those who were Jewish and wanted to emigrate, Ronald Reagan stood in solidarity for them. He made a difference. So I do not think he would have given MFN to China. I do know this. While I cannot say that he would not have given MFN to China, I do know that he signed the bill to take away MFN for Ceausescu and the brutal Romanian administration in 1987. So I personally do not think that Ronald Reagan would have. For those on my side of the aisle, we talk about our values and we talk about what do we want to stand for. The Republican Party ought not only be the party of free trade, and I am a free trader, I voted for NAFTA, the Republican Party not only should be an economic party, but we should be a party that cares about these fundamental values of human rights and religious freedom. Nina Shea goes on to say on page 62 of the book, In the Lion's Den, another brutal incident occurred in March 1996 when five evangelical women were arrested, it seems like evangelicals can just be the target around the world today. It almost seems that if one is an evangelical or Catholic priest or Catholic bishop, they can be the target and nobody will really care. In fact, I do remember during the debate last year when we extended it, people talked about we need engagement. After they got their MFN, there was no engagement at all, they continued to get their MFN and nobody did anything. Here are five evangelical women arrested and detained in western Xinjiang Province after a raid on a house church in a predominantly Muslim region. A total of 17 church members were initially arrested, and 12 were released when 5 women accepted responsibility for the gathering. Police severely beat several of the Christians, knocking out one woman's front tooth and poured scalding water on those who resisted orders. The five women were imprisoned. Catholics too have felt great pressure in 1996. Believers within the Roman Catholic Church are forced to affiliate with the government- sanctioned Catholic Patriotic Church, which does not recognize the ultimate earthly authority of the Pope. She goes on to say, the Connecticut-based Cardinal Kung Foundation reports that security troops conducted a series of raids in spring 1996 throughout the Baoding Diocese in Hebei Province which has a significant population. Priests, including two bishops, were arrested, churches were forced to register with the Catholic Patriotic Association, and at least 4,000 Catholics were forced to recant their faith publicly. She goes on, and has a picture here of Bishop Su. The 64-year-old auxiliary bishop of Baoding was arrested in a series of raids against Catholics in Hebei Province in the spring of 1996. Bishop Su had already spent a total of 15 years in prison because of his religious activity. Once he was beaten by security police until the board they were using was reduced to splinters. Not satisfied, the police then dismantled a wooden door frame in order to continue the beatings, which soon splintered as well. On another occasion the bishop was bound by the wrists and suspended from the ceiling while beaten. His head received numerous blows, causing permanent loss of hearing. In still another prison episode, and what a man of faith Bishop Su is, he was placed in a closet-sized room filled with water at varying levels, from ankle deep to hip deep. He was left there for several days, unable to sit or sleep. We have films showing that it is a wonderful thing to give the most-favored-nation trading status to China. Let me read on a little bit more. In January 1996, Reverend Guo Bo Le, a Roman Catholic priest from Shanghai, was sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment at a ``reform through labor'' camp because of his illegal religious activities. He was arrested while celebrating mass on a boat for about 250 fishermen. Guo's other illegal activities included administering the Sacrament of the Sick, establishing underground evangelical church centers, organizing catechism institutes, teaching Bible classes, and boycotting the Catholic Patriotic Association, the nonrecognized church. Fifty- eight-year-old Guo has already spent 30 years, over half of his life, in a Chinese prison camp because of his faith. Thirty years in a China's prison camp, and the Boeing Corp. cannot even speak out on these issues? As I maintained in the letter, reasonable men and women can differ on this issue, but those who said they wanted MFN said that this would enable us to engage, constructive engagement was their word, engage the Chinese. Well, would not the Chinese Government really listen to Boeing more than they would listen to me? I am against MFN. Boeing is for MFN. Would not the Chinese Government be more sympathetic to Boeing if Boeing were to speak out on behalf of this Roman Catholic priest? I just wonder if Boeing has in their files any letters that they have ever sent to Li Peng asking for the release of Catholic priests or the release of Catholic bishops, or the release of Buddhist monks or the release of Buddhist nuns or the release of Protestant pastors. I will end with the last comment she makes, and there are many, many more in the book, ``In the Lion's Den.'' She said another cause for religious persecution stems from China's draconian one-child-per-family and eugenics-based population control plan. Those defying the population controls, including Christians motivated by conscience, are harshly punished by torture, imprisonment, fines, and forcible abortions and sterilizations. This really is a pro-life issue, too. When the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I were in China we talked to people and they told the stories of women in China who were tracked down by the Chinese Government officials in those villages and forced to have an abortion because they have the one-child policy. I am sure most people in this country would not want to have the one-child policy. They would be very upset with regard to that. Mr. Speaker, there is much, much more that I could say today on this issue. I would like to just close by reading a portion of Ronald Reagan's speech that he gave in Orlando, that wonderful speech in 1983. In the speech Ronald Reagan quoted from the famous author, C.S. Lewis. He said the following. He said, ``It was C.S. Lewis who, in his unforgettable Screwtape Letters, wrote `The greatest evil is not done now in those sordid dens of crime that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived in order and moved and seconded and carried out in clear, carpeted, warm and well-lit offices by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.' '' He went on to say, ``Because these men do not raise their voices and because they sometimes speak in soothing tones of brotherhood and peace, because, like other dictators before them, they are always making `their final territorial demand,' some would have us accept them at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses.'' But if history teaches anything, it teaches that ``the simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past and the squandering of our freedom,'' the betrayal of our past and the squandering of our freedom. What he meant is, when Ronald Reagan was very firm and we were in a bipartisan way on this issue, Ronald Reagan met with Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan met with Brezhnev, but he always raised the cases of the dissidents. Our Secretary of State, Jim Baker and Schultz and others, used to meet with the dissidents in the American Embassy as an act of solidarity, so they knew that we stood with them. The fact is in the 1980's 250,000 people rallied on the Mall one Sunday because of the persecution of those of the Jewish faith; 250,000 people came from all over the country in solidarity of those who were being persecuted in the Soviet Union. How times have changed. Who says it does not make a difference who is in political office? Who says it does not make a difference what values they have? Now, after looking at what has taken place in China in 1996, not 1976 but in 1996, we still see those who continue to want to give MFN to the butchers who say that they are going to change or they are going to do this, but we also saw that even when the leaders of China say they are going to change, 1996 was the worst year since the 1970's. We know that when Andre Sakharov was under house arrest and Nathan Scharansky, that hero, so when he was released from Perm Camp 35, through the good effect of the Reagan administration when he came to the Glienicker Bridge in East Berlin to go into West Berlin, the communists told Scharansky to walk straight across the bridge, and Scharansky refused. When he broke loose from the Communist authorities he walked zig-zagged, this way and back, to defy them, to let them know that freedom was important, and he was a free man, that he did not have to do what they do. We need that same activism today. In fact, Scharansky said if it had not been for Ronald Reagan and the denial of MFN and the pressure that this Congress used to put on, he may never have gotten out of jail. So many hear the words that we will all hear again repeated over and over as we come to the July 4th period, the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson from the State of Virginia that I am proud to represent, where Thomas Jefferson said, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men,'' and women, ``are created equal, endowed by their creator with unalienable rights: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' That was not only for the people in Charlottesville, he wrote it when he was actually in Philadelphia, it was not only for the people of Philadelphia and the United States, it was for all of the people of all the world. That is why the people in Tiananmen Square had the Statue of Liberty and quoted those words, and now they wonder, now they wonder, have we lost our will in the West? Has the Congress lost its will? Has a Republican Congress lost its will, the Republicans who used to boldly proclaim in the 1980's on these things, have we lost our will? I had an opportunity with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], when we visited Perm Camp 35, we brought a TV camera in and we interviewed some of these prisoners. Do Members know what they told us? Here we are in the Ural Mountains, under communism, in a brutal camp, they told us that they knew of the actions of the Reagan administration on behalf of human rights and religious freedom. They knew of the activities of the Congress. I remember hearing that when the Congress denied MFN by a vote in 1987 and we took away MFN from Romania, peasants in little villages and all through Romania heard of the fact that the people's House, the House of Representatives, had stood firm and had struck a blow for freedom by denying MFN, and they knew that someone in the West cared. Now what will they hear today? They will hear that Clinton has granted MFN again this year. They will see that maybe the Congress has not done anything, and that we do not really care and we do not really act. In closing, I would just urge all of my colleagues to be with the American people, be with the American people in the Harris-Teeter poll in the Wall Street Journal on May 1, 1997, which said as follows: that 67 percent said they demand human rights policy changes, and 27 percent said to continue trade relations. The American people are where they always have been. The question is, will the Congress, will the Congress be with the American people? Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article from the Seattle Times of Monday, May 12, 1997. The article referred to is as follows: [From the Seattle Times, May 12, 1997] New China Lobby Is Big Business (By Sara Fritz, Los Angeles Times) Washington.--Jolinda Resa, owner of Square Tool and Machine in El Monte, Calif., was receptive last year when a Boeing representative showed up at her plant with an unusual request. The visitor asked Resa, whose company supplies Boeing with machines for its manufacturing plants, if she would assist the giant airplane manufacturer in a drive to urge Congress to renew most-favored-nation trade status for China. Resa gladly agreed to contact her congressman, Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., and she arranged for local business leaders to attend a luncheon with a speaker recommended by Boeing. She did it, she says, because she realized that the future of her company depends on Boeing orders from airplane sales to China. ``In order to keep my 70 employees working,'' she explained. ``I felt I should do everything I could.'' Thus was the tiny Square Tool and Machine recruited into what experts call ``the new China lobby''--a broad-based, highly sophisticated army of U.S. corporate executives, lobbyists and consultants who use their considerable economic and political influence to press the U.S. government into maintaining good trade relations with China, whose market is the fastest growing in the world. $20 million lobbying effort Last year, major U.S. corporations doing business with China spent an estimated $20 million on a state-of-the-art lobbying drive that relied heavily on small-business suppliers such as Resa. Congress ultimately approved another one-year renewal for China for the low tariffs and other preferences for U.S. trading partners who have MFN status. This year, however, China's reliance on U.S. companies to lobby on its behalf for another one-year MFN extension has taken on a more sinister coloration as a result of allegations that the Chinese may have made illegal donations to the U.S. presidential campaign last year. Opponents of unfettered U.S.-China trade, including labor unions, human-rights groups and conservative Christians, are demanding to know why China seems to command more loyalty from U.S. business than do other foreign countries. The Chinese government has made no secret in recent years of its determination to influence U.S. government policy. Among other things, it has established a Politburo-level Working Committee on the U.S. Congress, which monitors actions in Washington and regularly hosts U.S. lawmakers in Beijing. American companies insist that they are representing their own interests--not those of China--when they lobby for MFN status. They note that the Chinese repeatedly have declared that business with U.S. companies will be halted if MFN status for China is revoked or if Congress makes it contingent on democratic reforms in China. Cindy Smith, spokeswoman for Boeing, says the Chinese are in no way directing, financing or influencing the pro-MFN lobbying effort by big American companies. Yet she admits that her company knows the Chinese are paying close attention to Boeing's lobbying activities. ``Did (the Chinese) ask us to do it? Never!'' Smith said. ``Are they happy and pleased? Of course.'' china is the future As Boeing officials explain it, big U.S. corporations believe that their economic future depends on preserving trade with China. Boeing estimates that China will buy 1,900 airplanes valued at $124 billion over the next 20 years-- sales that will go to other countries if Congress raises barriers to trade with China. Many American companies not only depend upon sales to Beijing, but they also have made sizable investments in Chinese plants. Motorola, for example, estimates that it has invested at least $1 billion in China; making it the largest U.S. investor. American companies are sensitive to criticism of their lobbying expenditures on behalf of China, particularly since the news media began reporting on possible illegal Chinese donations to U.S. political candidates. As a result, these companies refuse to discuss their lobbying activities in detail or to disclose how much money they are spending on it. Nevertheless, experts say corporate lobbying expenditures on MFN status far surpass the amount spent by business on any other issue. Groups established to lobby for unrestricted U.S.-China trade include the U.S.-China Business Council, made up of 300 corporations; the Emergency Committee for American Trade, a group of 55 chief executives; the Business Coalition for U.S.-China Trade, an organization of trade associations; and the China Normalization Initiative, a loosely organized state-by-state effort run by a few big companies such as Boeing and Motorola. MFN request due on June 3 Although this year's political battle over MFN status may not begin formally until June 3--the date by which President Clinton must request renewal--all these groups are lobbying hard. Top corporate executives have been calling on members of Congress for several weeks, and the ``captains'' of more than 30 state-level MFN campaigns were introduced to their Congress members at a well-attended party on Capitol Hill last week. By all accounts, the ability of major American corporations to enlist their suppliers as lobbyists was seen as the secret to their victory last year. Members of Congress respond more readily to the concerns of small-business owners in their own districts than to high-pressure pitches from big-business lobbyists. PR Watch, a small newsletter that covers the lobbying and public relations industries, recently published a secret map that corporations used in last year's MFN campaign. It shows how each big company in the coalition was assigned a state or region of the country where it was expected to recruit small- business people to press for MFN status. Square Machine and Tool was part of the California campaign, which the map shows to be the primary responsibility of executives from IBM and TRW. Resa was one of 1,200 Boeing suppliers across the nation who got involved in the campaign, according to the company. For her effort, she received a large framed photo of a Boeing 737 taking off in a scenic area of China. Critics see problems with the corporate tactics. By enlisting small businesses to participate in the MFN lobbying campaign, says Representative Nancy Pelosi, D- Calif., the big companies create a false appearance of ``grass-roots'' support for MFN status when in fact the support is more like ``Astroturf--the kind of grass that you buy.'' Pelosi and Fiedler, among others, demand that members of the new China lobby disclose more details of their legislative strategies and their sources of income. Registered foreign agents must file regular public reports. But many of the high-profile companies and professional consultants who represent Chinese interests in Washington-- including former secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig--escape the requirement because they work for companies that do business in China, not for the Chinese government itself. Fiedler says some of the lobbyists have ``crossed the line'' between representing their own business interests and propagandizing on behalf of the Chinese government. kissinger and boeing He cites a half-hour video titled ``China and Boeing Working Together'' that the company distributes to the news media. The video, replete with misty Chinese scenery and sentimental music, records a speech in Beijing by Kissinger defending the policies of the Chinese government and condemning Americans who want to use trade sanctions to force changes in China. Fiedler and other critics say these consultants are intellectual hostages of the Beijing regime and speak out favorably for China, to arrange meetings for their clients with top leaders in Beijing. ``There is a direct quid pro quo in terms of access,'' Pelosi said. ``They get access in exchange for speaking out.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's taking this time out. I was sitting in my office and heard about it and just wanted to come over to pay tribute to J.L., for her career, and thank her for all the good things she has done, and for her friendship over the many years. I attended the University of Mississippi for a year, and I know J.L. moved up here from Mississippi. In fact, as I remember, when I was at the Department of Interior, working for then-Secretary Morton, I would go around and visit the office of Mr. Colmer, who was then the chairman of the powerful Committee on Rules, and Senator Trent Lott was the administrative assistant. He was a Democrat in those days, a very conservative Democrat, but naturally, I guess, as most of America has, he moved into the Republican Party because of the changes. But J.L. came here in 1967. I came up here on Capitol Hill in 1968 for a Republican Member and, off and on, had a relationship and would see her at different events. And I just wanted to join the gentleman from Michigan and the other Members in paying special tribute to her and let her know that she will be in my thoughts and my prayers. And that is not just a throwaway line that we say. I will pray for her healing and that the Lord will give her strength to face this time. Again, I thank the gentleman for taking this time. And, J.L., it is nice being with you.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday was Mother's Day and it was a day to give thanks for our mothers and praise them and honor them. But this past Sunday also was an important day to many in this Nation, but for a more sinister reason. It was the one-year anniversary of the ValuJet crash. It was a crash that could have been avoided, Mr. Speaker, with either smoke detectors and fire suppression systems or by prohibiting armed oxygen canisters in some cargo holds. Transporting armed oxygen canisters in unreachable holds is unlawful today, but as the recent Continental Airlines incident indicates, the FAA's enforcement of these regulations is weak. The NTSB has recommended after the ValuJet crash that the FAA promulgate rules requiring the installation of smoke detectors and fire suppression systems. Similarly, NTSB made an urgent recommendation in December following the TWA Flight 800 crash. Today I am calling on the FAA to quickly, quickly promulgate and implement regulations regarding the use of smoke detectors and fire suppression systems in all passenger aircraft, as well as fuel tank recommendations of the NTSB. Every Member of Congress who flies an airplane or who represents anybody who flies an airplane ought to be putting pressure on the FAA. [From the LA Times, May 6, 1997] Snail's Pace in Airliner Safety FBI Director Louis J. Freeh has reiterated an idea expressed by some federal officials since late last year: that it was a catastrophic mechanical failure that brought down TWA Flight 800 last July, killing all 230 aboard. ``The evidence is certainly not leading in the direction of a terrorist act, It is in fact moving in the other direction,'' Freeh said on a television news show Sunday. But he stressed that no official conclusion on the cause of the TWA disaster has been reached. Such a slow pace is not unusual in these matters. It took two years, for example, to officially rule that a bomb had caused the explosion of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. Even without a final report, you might think that corrective action would occur quickly. After all, the National Transportation Safety Board, and now Freeh, has emphasized the possibility that Flight 800 disintegrated because a spark ignited a volatile air-fuel mixture in its central fuel tank. Well, here's the snail's-pace chronology that followed the ``urgent'' NTSB recommendations on Dee. 13 for changes that it said could prevent an explosion of this kind: The Federal Aviation Administration had 90 days to respond and announced in February that it would issue a notice for public comment in the Federal Register within 30 days. The notice finally appeared in April, at which point another 90-day period commenced. This means that the recommendations cannot be acted on until July. The Clinton administration and Congress ought to find a way to shorten this process. If a streamlined process had been mandatory, the implementation of one or more of the changes to prevent central fuel tank explosions in more than 1,000 active U.S. commercial jets might already be underway.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding time to me, and I hope I can do it in 2 minutes. I want to commend the gentleman. I do want to say I was very disappointed, though, that the leadership in the Committee on rules chose not to protect from points of order a total of $1.6 billion in rescissions of contract authority. These rescissions are necessary to ensure that the spending contained in this bill is fully offset. Without them, this emergency Supplemental appropriations will add more than $1.6 billion to the deficit, and I would have hoped, knowing that the gentleman has done such a good job and the committee did such a good job of offsetting it, that that would have been protected. I just thought it was a given, because we have been committed to making sure that all of this is offset. Second, and I have so much here, I would just submit it all for the Record, but I would say that I am concerned that the senate has added much more money in to this for highway spending to donor States, far beyond what the President or anybody else has even suggested that should be in. We wanted a bill that was totally offset, and now they have added so much more. Third, as the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations knows, and I would hope that we can resolve this matter, they have also basically put earmarking back in. This House, on both sides of the aisle, did away with earmarking. Some people call them pork projects, some people call them highway demonstration projects, others call them whatever they want to. As an example, in the Senate bill, the State of Alabama would receive $21 million in additional highway aid funds in fiscal year 1997 and the State of Alabama would be required to spend all of that money on one specific project, the Warrior Loop project. The House is well aware that we have gotten rid of these things, so therefore the other body has put in more money, well beyond what the President wanted, and at the very time both bodies are meeting, the budget committees are meeting, everyone is taking credit for reaching a balanced budget in the year 2002, yet we put more money into this than the President asked or anybody else asked for. So I hope as we get to conference both of these issues will be resolved. Lastly, this is not the place to rewrite ISTEA. The place to rewrite ISTEA is in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure this year. I again want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for his outstanding job, and just hope that we can make sure this money is offset when we go back to committee. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for yielding me a few minutes so that I might discuss a few of the items in the Transportation Subcommittee's jurisdiction. First, the chairman of the full committee needs to be congratulated for the yeoman's work that he has done in crafting this bill--an $8.4 billion emergency supplemental bill that is fully offset. That was no easy task. He has been forced to make some difficult decisions and has done a commendable job under equally difficult circumstances. I am disappointed, however, that the leadership and the Rules Committee chose not to protect from points of order a total of $1.6 billion in rescissions of contract authority. These rescissions are necessary to ensure that the spending contained in this bill is fully offset. Without them, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill will add more than $1.6 billion to the deficit. This action is disturbing and painful. In the area of transportation, the emergency supplemental bill includes $650 million in emergency highway program funds, $40 million for the FAA to procure additional explosive detection equipment, $22 million for the National Transportation Safety Board, and $10 million for emergency railroad rehabilitation. These funds are needed desperately to respond to the devastating floods that occurred throughout our country this spring and to ensure safety in our skies. The bill also includes $318 million in additional fiscal year 1997 obligation authority for the Federal-aid highway program. These funds were requested by the President and are intended to compensate those States that were given an expectation of what they would receive--a false expectation, based on an arithmetic error by the Treasury Department--which they then calculated into their State highway fund. The committee has been responsible and diligent in responding to the needs of the people in the flooded areas while being mindful of the desire of the American people to balance the budget and to offset this additional spending. I am concerned, however, that the other body has gone much further than is necessary or warranted. I want to alert my colleagues to the other body's actions on its version of the supplemental bill-- particularly with respect to two troubling issues. These issues have the potential to delay unnecessarily the emergency funding contained in this bill. The other body has provided a total of $933 million in additional fiscal year 1997 obligation authority for the Federal-aid highway program. Of this amount, $457 million was added to address the Treasury error that I alluded to earlier in my remarks. Moreover, the other body has provided almost a half a billion dollars more in additional fiscal year 1997 Federal-aid highway spending. This spending was not requested by the President and is not necessary as an emergency requirement. This funding has nothing to do with the arithmetic error. It has to do with providing a hold-harmless provision to donee States to address what the donee States now see as a problem in the highway authorization act of 1991. That act, ISTEA, contained a provision for donor States--those States that had traditionally received back substantially less than they had contributed to the highway trust-fund--that in the last year of the 6 years of ISTEA authorization, which is this year, there would be inserted a 90-percent floor. That is, no State would get back less than 90 percent of what it contributed to the highway fund. The 90-percent standard has been the holy grail of those States that have gotten less back than they have contributed to the fund. This program, the 90 percent of payments program, was part of the common understanding of the Congress and the States when President Bush signed the bill in 1991. It was the understanding of the donee States. It is now the law of the land. Well, now the donee States want more--more than what they have received in excess of their contributions over the last 6 years, more than what they would get under current law, more that what they are entitled to under ISTEA. The donee States would get a half a billion dollars more from the other body. This is not fair to the donor States. While the majority of the other body is represented by donee, States, the overwhelming majority of this House is elected from donor States. Mr. Chairman, this urgent supplemental appropriations bill is not the place--nor is it the time--to debate the donor/donee States issue. The reauthorization of ISTEA is the proper and appropriate legislation to debate this divisive issue. In addition to this item, the other body has taken the unprecedented step of earmarking seven highway demonstration projects from the funds provided to the States under the regular Federal-aid highway program. Rather than provide additional highway funds to the States without strings attached or to earmark funds in excess of the regular Federal- aid highway program for specific projects, as has been the norm, the other body directs certain States to spend a portion--and in some cases all--of their Federal-aid highway fund on specific highway demonstration projects. As an example, in the Senate bill, the State of Alabama would receive $21 million in additional Federal-aid highway funds in fiscal year 1997. The State of Alabama would be required to spend all of that money on one specific project, the Warrior Loop project. Now, under the provisions of the Senate's bill, the State of Alabama either uses its Federal-aid highway funds on this one particular project by the end of September, or it loses all of it. The State is afforded no elasticity as they have under current law. The process advocated by the other body will significantly change the manner in which the Federal Highway Administration manages the Federal- aid highway program. It will also impact each of the States' ability to fund the projects of greatest need. And it eliminates the flexibility afforded the States and local units of government under current law to determine what project or program is best for them. This process undermines the planning process established by ISTEA and forces the States to give a higher priority on these projects than on other potentially more worthy projects. The House is well aware of our position on the earmarking of highway demonstration projects. As a result of not earmarking highway demonstration projects, the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation has been able to increase the Federal-aid highway program by almost $1 billion. In doing so, we have allowed the States and people at the local level to determine the appropriate use of these funds--not people here in Washington in their ivory towers. These issues are surely to be contentious in conference and I felt compelled to inform my colleagues at this stage of the process. I am afraid that a protracted debate on Federal-aid highway formulas and the underlying donor/donee State problem as well as the earmarking highway demonstration projects will delay the necessary funding to respond to the devastating floods that occurred this spring. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that, and I just wanted to thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] for speaking out on Mr. Wei and, second, to say that he was arrested after meeting with John Shattuck from the Clinton administration. After the meeting he was arrested, and I guess I would just say to my colleagues in the House this Congress ought to do something about it. When Sakharov was under house arrest in the 1980's and Scharansky was in Perm Camp 35, we did resolutions, we did everything, and now we are in the 1990's, in a Republican Congress I might say, so I would say to the leadership on our side we should be doing something to demonstrate that we care. So I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] for taking this time, and I thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] for doing it because this Congress, if we do nothing, we are going to be somewhat complicit in what the Chinese government is doing. So hopefully the Congress will make this a point of reference and we will talk about it until Mr. Wei is released.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, this week, Newsweek magazine, which is the country's premier news magazine, focused on Hong Kong and its return to China later this summer. The world is waiting to see if what has become the status quo in the People's Republic of China will become the status quo in Hong Kong. How long will it take until those who desire to express their love of a Democratic system be banned from public process? How long will it take for pastors and priests and religious leaders to be barred from practicing their faith freely and leading believers in worship and obtaining Bibles and other spiritual material? If we want to protect Hong Kong, the best thing that we can do for this House is to vote to deny MFN for China, because that will send a message to the Chinese Government like no other message that we could send. I strongly urge my colleagues to read this article in Newsweek.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, President Ronald Reagan was a champion for human rights in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. He spoke up in defense of freedom and democracy. He raised the cases of dissidents during the high-level meetings with Soviet officials. He made passionate and eloquent speeches outlining America's values, but he engaged forthrightly and he backed up engagement with action. We all remember his famous 1983 speech to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, FL. It was then that he called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire. That courageous speech, ridiculed by some as too belligerent, was a decisive moment in American history and a decisive moment in the cold war. In that speech, President Reagan says, and I quote, he said, it was C.S. Lewis, who, in his unforgettable Screwtape Letters wrote, ``the greatest evil is not done now in those sordid `dens of crime' that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered, moved, seconded, carried and minuted, in clear, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.'' He went on to say that, well, because these quiet men do not raise their voices, because they sometimes speak in soothing tones of brotherhood and peace, because, like other dictators before them, they are always making, quote, their final territorial demand. So some would have us accept them at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses. But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simpleminded appeasement, where wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly, it means the betrayal of our past and the squandering of our freedom. Mr. Reagan went on to say, while America's military strength is important, let me adhere that I have always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might; the real crisis we face today is a spiritual one. At its root it is a test of moral will and faith. I believe we shall rise to the challenge, he said. I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written. ``I believe this because our source of strength in the quest for human freedom is not material but spiritual, and because it knows no limitations, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their fellow men.'' I do not know and it would be unfair for me to say how President Reagan would have voted today on most favored nation trading status for China. I do know, however, that he opposed MFN for the Soviet Union while people of faith were being persecuted and human rights were being grossly violated and the Soviet Union was a military threat to the United States. President Reagan engaged with Soviet leaders, but he did not grant them MFN. Today in China people of faith, particularly those who choose to worship outside government control, are now being persecuted. Catholic priests are in jail, Catholic bishops are in jail, Protestant pastors are in jail, Buddhist monks and nuns are in jail, churches are raided, monasteries in Tibet are raided, and all the key leaders of the democracy movement are jailed, and many others are harassed and closely watched by the Chinese Government. President Reagan also opposed MFN for the Romanian Ceausescu-led Communist government in Romania, and as we know, he signed the legislation taking away the most-favored-nation trading status, MFN, for Romania in 1987. These acts, acts like President Reagan took, these acts do not go unnoticed by the world. The Soviet people knew and the Romanian people heard the evil empire speech and the news of revocation of Romania's MFN on the Voice of America, and they knew that someone cared. In 1989, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Chris Smith, and myself visited Perm Camp 35, the last gulag in the Soviet Union, which was in the Ural Mountains. Many of the political prisoners whom we met with told us they knew of President Reagan's efforts and it gave them hope. Even in one of the darkest places in the Soviet totalitarian system, these prisoners knew of President Reagan's support for human rights and religious freedom. It gave them hope that someone was brave enough to stand up to the dictators. It gave them hope that someone was brave enough to stand up for freedom. Today, what kind of message are we sending to the men and women in China who are longing and hoping that someone will speak up for them? Bringing democracy to China must start with supporting those who are working for a democratic form, and I believe revoking MFN is the first but not the only step in that process. I want, as a Republican Member of the House, I want the Republican Party to be faithful to the principles of Lincoln and Reagan and stand up for more than just trade. The GOP should stand up for the rights of people instead of only the rights of business. I support free trade. I have been a voter in this Congress for free trade. But I am concerned that trade has become the sole focus of our foreign policy in China and the quest for dollars stifles all other considerations or attempts to influence change. The losers are those suffering at the hands of the dictators. The Catholic priests, the Catholic bishops, the Buddhist monks, the evangelical pastors, the people in the house church, the Muslims who are being persecuted in the northwest portion of China, these are the losers suffering at the hands of dictators. I want today's victims of authoritarianism to hear on Voice of America and Radio Free Asia that the United States is still standing by those principles. Should I ever get the opportunity to visit the prison or the laogai where Wei Jingsheng and Bao Tong and Wang Dan and others who have been arrested, and Bishop Su Chimin, who was beaten by police with a board until it broke in splinters, or Pastor Liu Zhenyiang, nicknamed the ``heavenly man'' for surviving a 70-day fast in protest for his persecution, where they are being held, if I ever get into those prisons I want them to say, ``We knew, we knew that the United States stood for us.'' The words of freedom and democracy inherently fly in the face of dictators and cause them to brand all its adherents as nationalist or imperialists, but the words ``freedom'' and ``democracy'' are the words that bring hope to the thousands around the world who do not enjoy these precious liberties. We must use every means at our disposal to make them a reality. Mr. Speaker, I saw a portion of a poll that was taken by the Wall Street Journal and NBC, by the two pollsters Hart and Teeter, one a Democrat and one a Republican. In the May 1 poll that was reported in the Wall Street Journal, this is what the question was. The question was: Should China improve human rights status or lose current trade status? This, Mr. Speaker, is what the American people said. The American people said, on the question maintain good trade relations, 27 percent; demand human rights policy changes, 67 percent. So 67 to 27 percent, the American people stand on behalf of being tough on human rights. I knew the American people would stand that way. The question is will the Congress stand that way, and will this administration stand that way. Even if the administration does not stand that way, and the indications are that this administration will not stand that way, the Congress should stand that way. The House of Representatives should stand that way. Unconditional MFN is not working. There is more repression in China today than 3 years ago when President Clinton delinked trade from human rights. Let us cease our wishful thinking that this is the best course. Let us let the Chinese people who are suffering at the hands of dictators--democracy activists, Christians, Tibetans, Muslims, Buddhists, and others--let them know that the United States stands with them, and let us send a strong message by voting to revoke MFN in the House of Representatives.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today we just heard that the President made his appointments to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. I would like to make a comment about it. Today's appointments to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission by President Clinton, in my opinion, tilt the balance of the commission in favor of the gambling industry. The purpose of the commission is to conduct a study of gambling and provide America's communities with objective information so that they may make their own decisions about gambling. The President personally told me that he supported the commission and appreciated its goals. In a letter to Senator Simon, the President wrote, and I quote, Senator Simon, former Senator from the State of Illinois who retired last year, he said: I deeply appreciate your efforts to draw attention to the growth of the gambling industry and its consequences. I have long shared your view about the need to consider carefully all of the effects of gambling, and I support the establishment of a commission for this purpose. But that was before the casinos and the gambling interests began contributing to last year's elections. Today's appointments reaffirm how America feels about this administration. It appears to be for sale to the highest bidder and in cases like this is fundamentally corrupt. The President of the United States today failed the American people. Today the President ignored all the problems related to gambling such as crime and corruption and cannibalization of business and the breakup of so many families. The President turned his back on all those desperate Americans addicted to gambling who cheat, steal, or lie to fuel their habit. The President today willfully overlooked the suicides and the family dissolution that comes with gambling. This is a sad day, I think, for America because the President's actions confirm the worst fears in that this administration has made a bad appointment and has, I think, poorly served the American people.