Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, the question of MFN will be coming up. I urge Members to take a look at a recent poll done by the Weekly Standard which I will put in the Record. This is what Public Opinion Strategies said: By an overwhelming margin of 61 to 29 percent, the American people oppose MFN for China. The other 10 percent did not know. Sixty-one to twenty-nine percent. The pollsters asked the respondents: ``Do you support or oppose continuing most-favored-nation status with China?'' Sixty-one percent to twenty-nine percent. That is all across the country, in every region, in all the cities, in the suburbs, on the farms, all political spectrum, men and women. The fact is even a greater percentage of women, 67 to 22 percent, oppose MFN. Let us listen to the American people. The Chinese are persecuting Christians, they have Christians in jail, Catholic priests, Catholic bishops, evangelical pastors, persecuting Buddhists and Moslems, and yet this Congress and this administration is thinking of giving MFN for China. I strongly urge Members to read the poll. The American people are aware. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party ought to be. Oppose MFN for China. Mr. Speaker, I include the following editorial for the Record: [From the Weekly Standard, April 28, 1997] The Poll Numbers on China: 61-29 Against The Washington debate over the Clinton administration's policy of appeasement--pardon us, ``engagement''--toward China is heating up. It will get even warmer as July 1 nears, when Hong Kong reverts to Chinese sovereignty after 155 years as a British crown colony. And there'll be a full boil when Congress takes up the question of China's ``most favored nation'' status in American trade law. The fearsome let's- trade-with-Beijing lobby will twist the arms of congressmen to shut up about human rights and pass MFN. Wavering legislators will want to know: Where's the public on this nettlesome issue? Here's the answer. At the Weekly Standard's request, the polling firm Public Opinion Strategies earlier this month reminded 800 Americans that the MFN designation ``gives the Chinese full trading privileges with the United States.'' Then our pollsters posed a question that, if anything, bends over backwards in favor of engagement. Some people support MFN ``because they believe it will promote democracy and free markets in China and help the U.S. economy.'' Others want to suspend MFN ``because China limits human rights, sells arms to Iran and pursues an aggressive foreign policy.'' So do our poll respondents ``support or oppose continuing most favored nation status with China?'' The result: The American people oppose MFN, overwhelmingly, by 61 to 29 percent (the other 10 percent don't or gave no answer). They oppose it in every region of the country. They oppose it in the cities. They oppose it in the suburbs. They oppose it on the farm. White people oppose it. Black people oppose it. Republicans oppose it. Democrats oppose it. Rich people oppose it. Poor people oppose it. High-school dropouts oppose it. Ph.D.s oppose it. Married people oppose it. Single people oppose it. Clinton voters oppose it. Dole voters oppose it. Perot voters oppose it. In other words, everyone opposes MFN. And interestingly enough, no one opposes MFN more than women do; by a whopping 45-point margin, 67 to 22 percent. So on this issue, President Clinton has a gender gap. He deserves it.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record the op ed piece by Gary Bauer, president of the Family Research Council, which appeared in Sunday's Washington Post, April 13, 1997. Mr. Bauer, along with a powerful coalition of religious leaders, advocates revoking China's most-favored-nation status, MFN, because of China's worsening human rights record, its continued proliferation of dangerous weapons and technology, its unprecedented military buildup, and its ballooning trade surplus with the United States. Mr. Bauer writes, and I quote, ``Morality and realism, too often considered the poles of this debate, both now clearly dictate the same course. Unless it changes its ways, China should be disfavored nation in every aspect of foreign policy.'' For Mr. Bauer and the coalition of conservative pro-family organizations and Christian leaders representing some 25 million Americans, the most compelling though not the only reason to revoke China's MFN status is repression of China's religious community. The government views as subversive the estimated 100 million Buddhists, the 17 million Moslems, the 8 million Catholics, and the 30 million Protestants worshiping outside the state-controlled so-called patriotic church system. The Chinese Government's attacks on the people of faith have intensified since President Clinton delinked trade from human rights in 1994. Last year according to Nina Shea of Freedom House's Puebla Program, Chinese Christians reported that they were experiencing the worst persecution since the pre-Deng era of the 1970's. Shea estimates that China holds more religious prisoners than any other country in the world. Freedom House maintains a list of 200 persons imprisoned for their religious beliefs but estimates the actual numbers are thought to be in the thousands. Since 1994, Chinese authorities have increased efforts to crack down on all unregistered churches and believers. In January 1994, Premier Li Peng, who was the man who called out the Chinese troops in Tiananmen Square that massacred all those young people, Li Peng promulgated two sets of regulations for registering religious activities. Security forces harass, arrest, beat, and imprison church leaders, impose stiff fines, demolish religious buildings or meeting places, and confiscate Bibles. Chinese authorities have called Protestants ``enemy forces'' and warned that Christianity has become the major threat to the Communist Party. My office recently obtained a copy of a document released by the Communist Party at Donglai Province on November 20, 1996, outlining procedures for eradicating the underground Catholic church. It calls for ``reeducation,'' ideological struggle sessions, and criminal prosecution of Catholics who are not involved in official churches. Mr. Speaker, over 100 house church leaders have been arrested and jailed in the first 3 months of 1997, the first 3 months of 1997. And still the Clinton administration wants to grant this regime most- favored-nation trading status. This has been according to Compass Direct, including leaders of the three largest house church networks in Henan Province. Just before the Easter visit to China of Vice President Al Gore and a bipartisan congressional delegation led by Speaker Newt Gingrich, authorities raided the Shanghai residence of Catholic Bishop Fan Zhongliang and confiscated his Bibles and other religious materials. Last year, three evangelicals and one Catholic priest were killed in three separate incidents after receiving severe beatings by the police. Hundreds of Protestant house churches in Shanghai and other provinces have been forcibly closed or demolished, and the popular Catholic shrine at Donglu has been smashed. A number of unregistered Catholic churches in Hebei and Jiangxi have been desecrated, destroyed, or shut down. And yet they want to give MFN to a country that does this, whose goal is to eradicate the house church, has Catholic bishops and priests in jail, is going after the evangelical Protestant church, have plundered Tibet and expelled the Dalai Lama from Tibet, and are persecuting Moslems in the northwest part of the country. And they want to grant MFN to them. Mr. Speaker, would these people have wanted to give MFN to the Soviet Union when they were persecuting those of the Jewish faith and shutting down dissidents and doing all the bad things that they were doing? No, no one wanted to give it to them then in the 1980's because of the terrible things they were doing. We used MFN to get dissidents out of jail. Yet they want to give MFN to China when they are doing all these terrible things in the 1990's, in the year 1997. In Tibet, the Chinese Government continues to plunder the Tibetan Buddhist culture and religion. The arrest, imprisonment, and torture of Tibetan monks and nuns continue unabated. The Chinese Government widened its ban on the photos of the Dalai Lama and contravened the spiritual process for selecting the Dalai Lama's successor, the Panchen Lama. The 6-year-old identified by the Dalai Lama as his successor disappeared in July 1995 and has not been heard of since. He has disappeared because of the activity of the Chinese Government in Tibet. And yet some people say they continue to want to give China most- favored-nation trading status. Only in Washington would that ever be said. The Chinese Government has also continued its assault on political dissidents. In the words of the State Department's annual human rights report, it says, and I quote, ``All public dissent against the party was effectively silenced by intimidation, exile, the imposition of prison terms, administrative detention or house arrest,'' end quote. There are no dissidents left outside of prison in China because they are all in prison in China or have been expelled from the country. Beijing's dictators have stepped up its religious persecution and its punishment of those who advocate democracy. That is a compelling moral reason to revoke MFN, even for those, like myself, who favor free trade. I quote, ``Turning a blind eye to the torture of fellow believers, winking at forced abortions, and ignoring slave labor camps and summary executions are too high a markup for people who are both economic and social conservatives,'' Bauer argues. He continues, and I quote, ``all Americans have a historic attachment to the idea of human rights. Jewish leaders, because of the activities on behalf of Soviet Jews in the 1970's and 1980's, have effectively reminded Christians of their responsibility to help their brethren in China. We should have learned through bitter experience that aggressive and despotic regimes that abuse their own people seldom stop there. Soon they rise up to undermine our allies and, ultimately, to threaten us,'' end of quote. Standing up to dictators is in our long-term national interests. The opposing view is that constructive engagement will bring long-term change we desire in China. But there is not evidence to suggest this approach is working. This engagement policy of MFN every year has been in effect for several years now, and we have seen no improvement, only worsening conditions. And for those who say maybe there is some improvement, talk to the priests and the ministers that are in jail, talk to the bishops that are in jail and ask them if their life has improved. Mr. Speaker, there is not evidence to suggest this approach is working. To this Mr. Bauer says, and I quote, ``Under the theories of constructive engagement, the past few years of America's demoralized Chinese policy should have produced at least some progress. In fact the regime in Beijing had every incentive to extend some olive branch to human rights issues. That it has chosen the opposite course should strike the advocates of cooperation as galling. But they are not easily galled,'' end of quote. The business community continues to convince the Clinton administration to hold the Sino-American relationship hostage to American business interests. The Clinton administration hopes that China will become a modern civilized nation only when it is offered full membership in the community of nations. ``Today,'' and this is a quote, ``Beijing continues to maintain a giant gulag of extra-judicial forced-labor camps called laogai. The cadres continue to impose a ruthless population-control program of forced sterilization and abortion. The systemic practices rival the worst abuses that occurred during seven decades of communist rule in the Soviet Union,'' Bauer argues. ``U.S. human rights policy was never delinked from Moscow's behavior toward its own citizens.'' It was never delinked in the Carter administration. It was never delinked in the Reagan administration. And we had a bipartisan foreign policy of Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, that linked human rights and trade and MFN. The Soviet Union was never a most favored trading partner in the United States. In the 1980's, we would have never given MFN to the Soviet Union. No member of Congress would have ever come down to the well of the House and spoken out in granting MFN to the Soviet Union because of what they were doing, and now the Clinton administration is asking that they extend MFN. Some are even asking for a permanent extension of MFN. In the 1980's, Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the evil empire. His words resonated around the world and into the Soviet gulags where victims of repression were energized by the belief that the United States cared for them and was speaking out for them. I had the opportunity with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] to go to Perm Camp 35, the gulag before communism fell where Shcharansky was imprisoned. We interviewed Shcharansky's cell mate in the gulag. Strangely enough, in the gulag, in the Ural Mountains far away from civilization, the prisoners in the gulag knew that Ronald Reagan and the Reagan administration was standing up for human rights. How? I do not know. But somehow they knew, because he had stood boldly in a bipartisan way on these issues of human rights. And now today China has repressed those in the Chinese gulags, and as many people know there are more gulags in China than there were in the Soviet Union. Mr. Speaker, we all know that Solzhenitsyn wrote the book ``Gulag Archipelago,'' and yet there are more gulags in China than there were in the Soviet Union. Yet today China's repressed hear only that the United States continues to deal with their repressor and ignores their suffering. How do we think a dissident in China feels when he sees that the Clinton administration is in support of MFN and wants to delink with regard to human rights and MFN? For foreign policy realists, those who believe that power rather than principle should drive foreign policy, the case for revoking MFN is equally compelling. Principle or power. ``The People's Liberation Army,'' and I quote, ``is engaged in an unprecedented buildup and is selling its weapons to terrorist regimes,'' Bauer points out. China maintains a trade surplus in the United States that is fast approaching $50 billion. We sell 15 billion dollars' worth of goods to China, but we buy almost 50 billion dollars' worth of goods in return and as a result have put a lot of American workers out of jobs. Many people in jail in China, as I told my colleagues, in Beijing Prison No. 1 and other slave labor camps are working on goods that are being exported to the United States. In fact, I visited Beijing Prison No. 1, a jail where Tiananmen Square demonstrators were working on making socks for export to the United States. And yet our workers had to compete with people who are in gulags and slave labor camps and jails. Mr. Speaker, I have long believed that the benefits of standing with the victims of tyranny far outweigh the short-term economic sacrifices of dealing with dictators. Morally, economically, and militarily, the case for revoking China's MFN status gets stronger each year. In summary, Mr. Speaker, I would put Mr. Bauer's whole article in the Record. I would encourage my colleagues to read it. I will close this as something we should all think about as we folks face this issue in the next couple of weeks. There are Catholic priests and bishops in jail in China and have been there for a long while, and some have been recently arrested. There are Protestant pastors in China. On a weekly basis they go into house churches and arrest people. They have plundered Tibet and have expelled the Dalai Lama. They are prosecuting those in the Moslem faith in the northwest region of their country. They have sold military equipment to the Iranian government. Just as recently as not very long ago, according to an article in the Washington Times this Friday, they have sold nuclear technology information to the Pakistan Government, which could destabilize the nuclear proliferation issue. They have more gulags in that country than they had in the Soviet Union, and yet we were so concerned about those in the Soviet Union, as we should have been, but we do not seem to be very concerned about what is taking place in China. They have an organ donor program whereby they kill prisoners, line them up, and we have it on film, shoot them, and then the doctors take their kidneys out and sell them for transplantation for kidneys to people in the West for $35,000 and $40,000. We have a trade imbalance of almost $40 billion. And many times, if you hear people speak, they will speak about the Declaration of Independence. I am blessed to represent the State of Virginia where Thomas Jefferson, one of our leaders and Presidents and Governor, wrote the words in the Declaration of Independence while he was residing in the city of Philadelphia where he said ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men,'' and women, ``are created equal, endowed by their Creator''; that means given by God, not by some Executive order by some administration or some legislative fiat, but endowed by God, given by their Creator, ``with inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' Now when Jefferson wrote those words he did not mean life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for people from Charlottesville or only from Virginia, but he meant it for the United States, he meant it for the people in China, he meant it for the people in Africa, he meant it for the people all round the world. So when we think of these issues, do we want to stand with those of power, or do we want to stand with those with regard to principle, and I maintain for all of these reasons, economic reasons and defense reasons, but fundamentally for the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness reasons, those people of faith who are being persecuted in the country of China, we should deny MFN, and when we denied MFN to Romania back in the mid-1980's because of the activity it was doing of persecuting those of faith, the next day on Radio Free Europe in little villages throughout Romania on their little crystal sets they heard the word that the United States Congress, the House of Representatives, the people's body, had taken a stand on behalf of those people of faith, and that made a tremendous difference. And when we take a stand in this body in the next several months on behalf of people of faith, it will be one of our finest hours when we deny MFN to China. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Gary Bauer article I referred to. [From the Washington Post, Apr. 13, 1997] Why People of Faith Must Challenge China (By Gary Bauer) The ground is shifting in the debate over renewal of most favored nation (MFN) trading status for China. New evidence of intensifying Chinese repression of religious liberty and political dissent is drawing into the argument a collection of religious and family-values organizations who sat out the MFN debate in 1996 and thereby ceded the field to economic interests, especially multinational businesses and Wall Street. We are sitting out no longer. Sometime next month, President Clinton will seek another year-long extension of China's favorable status in American trade law. When he does, Congress should hold a more searching discussion than we've had in past years. Then the president's request should be rejected. Morality and realism--too often considered the poles of this debate--both now clearly dictate the same course. Unless it changes its ways, China should be a disfavored nation in every aspect of American foreign policy. For social conservatives, the most compelling--though not the only--reason is repression of China's growing religious community. The government views as subversive the estimated 100 million Buddhists, 17 million Muslins, 8 million Catholics and 30 million Protestants worshiping outside the state-controlled ``patriotic church'' system. Repression ranges from ransacking homes in Tibet in search of banned pictures of the Dalai Lama to destroying or closing some 18,000 Buddhist shrines in Zhejiang province last spring. Ministers, priests and monks are routinely arrested, imprisoned, tortured and sometimes killed for the mere expression of their faith. Pastor Wong, who runs 40 evangelical churches in Wuhan, was released in December after a fourth arrest for spreading the Gospel. This time his captors broke several of his fingers with pliers. Last month, just before Easter, police invaded the apartment of Roman Catholic Bishop Fan Zhongliang of Shanghai, seizing Bibles and other religious items. These events form the core of the arguments we are making on Capitol Hill, and members of Congress have begun to rethink their positions. In the past few weeks, formerly ``safe'' House Republican votes for the renewal of MFN, like Majority Leader Dick Armey (Tex.) and Reps. John Kasich (Ohio), Fred Upton (Mich.), Peter Hoekstra (Mich.) and Bill Paxon (N.Y.), have voiced new doubts about the wisdom of the status quo. In a letter to leaders of both parties earlier this year, I told them that the vote on MFN for China will no longer be a one-sided debate between big business and a handful of critics. My letter carried the support of Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition, the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus of the Institute for Religion and Public Life, Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, and 19 other individuals and groups. Among us we have a combined membership of 25 million Americans. Joined with labor and human rights groups, this is a formidable alliance--as it will need to be. The opposing Business Coalition for U.S.-China Trade is marshaling the lobbying efforts of more than a thousand multinational corporations and trade associations. But I believe that our involvement brings particular strengths because of our own pro-business record. We disagree in this case because turning a blind eye to the torture of fellow believers, winking at forced abortions, and ignoring slave labor camps and summary executions are too high a markup for people who are both economic and social conservatives. But all Americans have a historic attachment to the ideal of human rights. Jewish leaders, because of their activities on behalf of Soviet Jews in the 1970s and 1980s, have effectively reminded Christians of their responsibility to help their brethren in China. We should have learned through bitter experience that aggressive and despotic regimes that abuse their own people seldom stop there. Soon they rise up to undermine our allies and, ultimately, to threaten us. President Clinton entered office on an explicit pledge to revive the moral basis of U.S. policy on China, which had been left in ruins at Tiananmen Square. He said he would abandon the accommodating posture of President Bush and deal more firmly with the men his running mate, Al Gore, called the ``butchers of Beijing.'' In particular, Clinton said, he would make the 1994 renewal of MFN--then and always the most significant element in Sino-U.S. relations--conditional on improvements in China's abysmal human rights record. When 1994 arrived, there was no evidence of human rights progress. But the Clinton administration, in an exercise of misguided pragmatism, abandoned its own promises and ``delinked'' human rights from trade. Ever since, the administration has single-mindedly pursued a policy of ``engagement'' with Beijing like no other in the history of U.S. contact with a communist regime. ``Realism'' requires it, according to the administration. Let's be realistic, then, about the fruits of current China policy. Besides China's apparent attempt to influence U.S. elections (a story that is painfully unfolding each day), we have the spectacle of American business interests ratcheting up the level of accommodation even as Beijing tightens the thumbscrews of repression. Today, elements of the U.S. business community say annual renewal of MFN is not enough: Let's make China's status permanent, and throw in World Trade Organization membership and terminate sanctions on high-tech exports to China, to boot. To understand how well this strategy will work now, consider 1994. At the very time President Clinton abandoned his MFN stance, the Chinese moved to crush religious freedom and began a brutal anti-clerical campaign. Premier Li Peng's Orders 144 and 145 banned all religious expression conducted outside China's state-run churches. China's timing was doubtlessly designed to test our mettle. Finding none, there came more turns of the screw. The U.S. State Department confirmed this in February in its report on human rights abuses. ``Overall in 1996, the authorities stepped up efforts to cut off expressions of protest of criticism.'' The same went for ``non-approved religious groups, including Protestant and Catholic groups.'' Under the theories of constructive engagement, the past few years of America's de-moralized China policy should have produced at least some progress. In fact, the regime in Beijing has had every incentive to extend some olive branch on human rights issues. That it has chosen the opposite course should strike the advocates of cooperation of galling. But they are not easily galled. U.S. corporate opportunities in China's emerging economy, we are told, are too lucrative to be ``held hostage'' to human rights principles. ``Hectoring'' Beijing about its tyrannical behavior is counterproductive. China, the Clinton administration believes, will become a modern, civilized nation only when it is offered full membership in the community of civilized nations. Today, three years after that invitation was extended, Beijing continues to maintain a giant gulag of extra-judicial forced-labor camps called laogai. The cadres continue to impose a ruthless population-control program of forced sterilization and abortion. These systemic practices rival the worst abuses that occurred during seven decades of communist rule in the Soviet Union. U.S. human rights policy was never ``delinked'' from Moscow's behavior toward its own citizens. And the Soviet Union was never a ``most favored'' trading partner of the United States. So much for the moral benefits of engagement. But the broader goals of American foreign policy haven't been achieved either. The People's Liberation Army is engaged in an unprecedented buildup and is selling its weapons to terrorist regimes. Meanwhile, we annually export a paltry $15 billion in goods to the mainland's largely closed markets, yet we buy $50 billion in return. If American policy is going to stand on ``bread alone,'' it should be better bread than this. Admission to the company of civilized nations should require, at the very least, civilized behavior. How can the free world be ``free'' is it admits to its ranks, for favored commercial and diplomatic treatment, a burgeoning super-power that is the very definition of tyranny? It can't. Ronald Reagan, who peacefully ended the Cold War with a hard-nosed realism that was derived from morality, not deprived of it, understood this truth. And a Republican-majority Congress that claims Reagan's legacy should never forget it.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, we will be addressing for the next couple of months in this body whether or not to grant the most-favored-nation trading status to China. I just had a series of town meetings. This issue came up in every town meeting. Clearly the American people are opposed to the Congress granting continuation of the most favored trading status to China. Some of the issues and why. It is important for Members of this body to know that in China, there are Catholic priests who are in jail. There are Catholic bishops who are in jail. In China there are Protestant pastors who are in jail. In China almost on a weekly basis, evangelical and house churches are raided whereby people are arrested and they are taken away. We have seen the Chinese Government plunder Tibet and expel the Dalai Lama where the Dalai Lama can no longer return to Tibet. We have seen the persecution of many who are Buddhist, both nuns and priests. We see persecution of Moslems in the northwest part of China. There are more gulags in China than there were in the Soviet Union. We all recall Solzhenitsyn's book, Gulag Archipelago. It is important that the American people know and that the Members of this body know that there are more gulags, slave labor camps, in China than any other country of the world and certainly many more than there were in the Soviet Union. We have seen China sell military weapons, equipment, to Iran, which is not in the best interests of this country. We have seen technology transferred to other countries with regard to nuclear technology, which again is not in the best interests of this country. As many Americans know, China sold weapons to Saddam Hussein in the Desert Storm fighting that were used against American forces during that time. We know what took place in Tiananmen Square, whereby we watched the activity. The government called out military forces to crush the Tiananmen Square demonstration, which was totally peaceful. I had the opportunity to visit Beijing prison No. 1 shortly thereafter, whereby we saw 40 Tiananmen Square demonstrators who were working on socks for export to the West. Again, how can Americans companies and textile companies compete with something like that? Mr. Speaker, there have been reports that in China they arrest people and those who are sentenced to death, some who have committed crimes, others who have not, whereby there was an organ donor program whereby after they shoot them, they take out their kidneys for sale, for transplantation. And there is even one report of an individual who was still alive and had both of his kidneys taken out for sale to people in the West. There is much more that will take place, and we will document it over the next several months. However, it is clear to say that during the 1980's, during the Reagan administration, we would have never granted MFN to the Soviet Union when they were doing terrible things. I remember when the Reagan administration and President Reagan gave the speech in Orlando, the evil empire, where he talked against the activities that were taking place. We in the Congress in a bipartisan way stood in solidarity to those in the Soviet Union, the dissidents, those that wanted to leave the Soviet Union and those that were being persecuted because of their faith and whatever reasons they were being persecuted, we stood in solidarity. Even during the Reagan administration, 250,000 people came and rallied on the Mall on behalf of those people. Every time there were visits from the Reagan administration and also the Carter administration to Russia, they may very well have met with Brezhnev and met with Gorbachev, but they also met in the American embassy in solidarity with those who were being persecuted in the Soviet Union. We stood with those people during that period of time, and we ought to stand with those people in China during this period of time. When I talked to Natan Shcharansky, who was in Perm Camp 35 in the Soviet Union, Shcharansky was baffled that we would ever grant MFN to China because he maintained that the reason he was released from Perm Camp 35 prison during that period of time was because of our activity in regard to MFN. Mr. Speaker, in summary, I might say that we will cover a number of these issues and urge the Members to seriously look at religious persecution, persecution of dissidents, the Catholic church, the Protestant church, the Buddhists, and many others as we make a decision whether or not we would grant MFN.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, in 1971, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation--Amtrak--began operations, taking over intercity passenger rail service from freight railroads. The freight railroads were eager to get out of the passenger rail service which had been unprofitable for many years. So eager in fact, that these freight railroads even donated equipment and provided financial assistance to help launch Amtrak. The Federal Government agreed to assist Amtrak in starting intercity passenger rail service and provide financial help. Amtrak currently provides almost 20 million intercity rail passenger trips per year in 45 States. While this sounds like an impressive number, these trips constitute less than 1 percent of all intercity travel in the United States. Automobiles account for the bulk of intercity travel, about 80 percent. Another 17 percent of travel between cities is on commercial or private aircraft. Even intercity buses provide more service--and have quadruple the ridership--than Amtrak. How much assistance has the Federal Government provided to Amtrak for its 1 percent market share? Since 1971 and through fiscal year 1997, the Federal Government has provided over $19 billion for Amtrak operating and capital expenses. That's $19 billion to help this fledgling corporation take over intercity passenger rail service from the freight railroads and provide less than 1 percent of all intercity travel. What have we gotten for our money? Far too little, I'm afraid. Despite this massive infusion of Federal dollars, Amtrak route miles have increased a mere 1,000 miles since 1971. Moreover, Amtrak has had an operating loss each and every year since it began in 1971, before paying to buy or maintain equipment. None, not a single one, of Amtrak's routes are profitable when equipment costs are included. And the outlook for the future is equally bleak. The fiscal year 1996 budget resolution approved by Congress assumes a phaseout of Amtrak operating assistance by the year 2002. However, Amtrak is ill-prepared to operate without Federal assistance. In fact, according to the General Accounting Office, Amtrak needs increased operating assistance--above current levels--rather than decreased funding. In addition, $4 billion is needed to replace worn out equipment. On top of the needed operating assistance, on top of the needed equipment assistance, Federal dollars will be needed to repair deteriorating track and signal equipment along the Northeast corridor. As I mentioned previously, none of Amtrak's routes are profitable, when equipment costs are included. Amtrak's Northeast corridor--the 450 mile route between Boston and Washington, DC--which accounts for about half of the 20 million intercity trips, covers only about 65 percent of its operating and equipment costs. Other routes cover much less, on average, just about 50 percent of the operating and equipment costs. In 1994, the GAO set off alarm bells about Amtrak's future. In its testimony to Congress, GAO warned that Amtrak's financial condition had deteriorated so significantly, that its projected future costs made recovery difficult. Since then, GAO has continued to warn of Amtrak's precarious financial position. Despite these dire predictions, over the past 2 years, Congress and the administration have indicated that if Amtrak is going to survive, it cannot be dependent upon Federal operating subsidies beyond the turn of the century. How can we reconcile Amtrak's enormous Federal assistance needs with the congressional mandate to eliminate its operating subsidies? How do we respond to the growing demands for capital assistance in the face of budgetary constraints. Quite honestly, I don't know. Amtrak remains heavily dependent on Federal support for both its operating and capital needs. Amtrak developed a strategic business plan in 1995 designed to increase revenues, control costs, and eliminate its need for Federal operating subsidies by the year 2002. This plan has been revised several times, each time to reflect updated realities of its inability to raise additional revenues and/or control costs. According to GAO, in fiscal year 1996, Amtrak's net loss was $764 million, and the gap between its operating deficit and Federal operating support was $82 million. Clearly, Amtrak is ill-prepared to operate without massive help. There is another important point to make. Amtrak has borrowed heavily since 1993. From fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 1996, Amtrak's debt and capital lease obligations rose from $527 million to $987 million-- nearly doubling in a 3 year period. Not only that, this debt does not include an additional $1 billion Amtrak expects to incur beginning in 1999 to finance high-speed train sets and maintenance facilities for the Northeast corridor and the acquisition of new locomotives. How has Amtrak been paying off its enormous debt obligations? By using Federal operating support. Over the last 4 years, GAO estimates that Amtrak's interest expenses have tripled--from a fiscal year 1993 level of $20.6 million to fiscal year 1996 level of $60.2 million. In fiscal year 1993, 6 percent of Amtrak's operating assistance was used to make interest payments on its debts but by fiscal year 1996, that percentage rose to an astounding 21 percent. Slightly less than a quarter of all of Amtrak's operating assistance is now going to pay for interest on its debt rather than covering costs associated with day-to- day running of the railroad. As interest payments on its debt consume an ever increasing portion of operating assistance, Amtrak has less and less subsidy agreement for current operating expenses. What needs to be done to increase Amtrak's profitability? Amtrak will tell you that it has been trying very hard to survive in a competitive marketplace. Yet as a result of declining passenger revenues coupled with price competition from airlines and intercity buses, Amtrak passenger revenues have declined 14 percent in real terms since 1990, further exacerbating a bad financial situation. Over the past 2 years, Amtrak has been able to restructure the company and route system, thereby making some productivity improvements and reducing annual costs by approximately $400 million. However, restructuring has not always worked as Amtrak planned. For example, in August 1996, Amtrak announced that it planned to eliminate five routes by November 10, 1996. Many States affected by these route terminations approached Congress, asking that we continue the routes until the State legislatures had an opportunity to meet and discuss whether they could fund these routes from alternative sources. Congress agreed and provided $22.5 million to continue these routes for an additional 6 months. However, because Amtrak did not correctly calculate the cost to run these routes, the railroad is predicting that it will lose $13.5 million on these routes, even after the Federal subsidy. As a result, Amtrak may need to cut additional routes in order to make up for these losses. And while Congress provided money to give the affected States time to develop alternate funding to continue these routes, I understand that none of the States has taken action to continue these routes. Since I became chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee 2 years ago, Amtrak has cut routes four times. It appears that this trend may continue. Furthermore, for Amtrak to become a competitive railroad, it must complete upgrading and installation of high speed rail service along the Northeast corridor. After a 2-year delay on this program, Amtrak awarded a high speed rail contract and a new electrification contract in 1996. Once the corridor begins providing high speed rail service from Washington, DC to Boston, Amtrak estimates that it will receive an additional $150 million in revenue per year. However, to electrify the corridor and modernize its fleet, Amtrak plans to invest $5.5 billion by the year 2001--$3.2 billion of which is expected to come from Federal capital grants. I believe this expectation is far-fetched. In a time of declining Federal resources, it is simply unrealistic to assume that the Federal Government will be able to provide $751 million per year in capital grants to Amtrak, when the most recent annual appropriations have been under $400 million--$345 million in fiscal year 1996 and $398.45 million in fiscal year 1997. What else can Amtrak do to improve its financial picture? Can it reduce its operating expenses by renegotiating labor agreements? Not so far. Amtrak recently renegotiated these agreements, but rather than getting some concessions from labor that would enable it to improve its financial position, Amtrak's labor costs are on the rise. Amtrak has repeatedly asked Congress to provide it with statutory relief from the most onerous labor provisions which could hold some of its labor costs in check. However, Congress has refused to provide this relief. What is the relief Amtrak seeks? Relief from current law which requires Amtrak to pay unemployment for up to 6 years to any employee whose route has been terminated or reduced to less than three times per week. Of course, other rail providers have similar requirements and they also have sought relief without success. Would it be fair to allow Amtrak to reduce the employment benefits it provides its workers while other transit companies can not? This is an issue Congress must address. Amtrak--and others--believe that to be free of Federal operating subsidies by the year 2002, it will need a dedicated source of capital funding. Amtrak has proposed receiving a half cent from the Federal gas tax, which would provide Amtrak up to $750 million per year. If these funds are drawn down from the current gasoline tax, not from the Federal portion allocated to deficit reduction, it will have a significant impact on whether the Federal Government can meet its current full funding grant agreements and other transit commitments, as well as its commitments for highway projects. Beyond this, if Amtrak receives this half cent, will Congress reduce the Federal subsidy provided to Amtrak, even after the railroad ceases collecting operating assistance? In fiscal year 1996, Congress appropriated $635 million for Amtrak grants and Northeast corridor development. This amount is less than what would be provided to the railroad by the gas tax. In fiscal year 1997, Congress appropriated $763 million, not including a one-time charge for a maintenance facility. This amount is roughly equal to what Amtrak would collect under the half cent proposal. What does all this mean? It appears that the half cent proposal is really a proposal addressing where Amtrak's money comes from rather than a proposal to wean Amtrak off Federal subsidies. So, what do we do? Our approach to Amtrak is somewhat like applying a band-aid when surgery is required. The band-aid may provide a temporary fix, but the fix--no matter how many band-aids are used--never addresses the underlying problem. Amtrak needs more than an annual financial band-aid. It is crying out for critical attention. Where do we go? Are we committed to Amtrak? If so, we must address Amtrak's needs in a comprehensive way in an effort to secure its financial footing and future viability. Amtrak is in a fragile state and cannot be expected to survive a piecemeal approach to addressing its problems and needs. But Congress and the American taxpayers can no longer be asked to throw good money after bad. Instead, if we are committed to Amtrak, we must be prepared to do what is necessary. I want Amtrak to survive. I believe America needs a national railroad passenger system as a vital part of a balanced transportation network for our nation. But we cannot continue the status quo with Amtrak. We must work to put Amtrak on sound financial footing and make it a viable mass transportation alternative for years to come. In the 104th Congress I introduced legislation to revitalize Amtrak and today, along with my colleagues, Mr. Packard and Mr. DeLay, I am reintroducing the ``Amtrak Route Closure and Realignment Act of 1997, a measure which I believe can work to help save intercity passenger rail service in our Nation. Despite its efforts, restructuring has not always worked as Amtrak planned. Some of Amtrak's unprofitable routes have been mandated by Congress and this has stymied its efforts to operate in a business-like manner. I believe it is imperative that we enable Amtrak to better operate in accordance with business principles. Let's get out of the way and allow Amtrak to operate like a business--a profitable one at that. My legislation would de-politicize Amtrak decision-making processes by removing from the political realm, painful route closure and realignment decisions, and placing them instead in the hands of an independent commission modeled after BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. This Amtrak Commission--called TRAC or Total Realignment of Amtrak Commission--would conduct an independent, economic analysis of the entire Amtrak system and then make recommendations on route closings and realignments urgently needed for the survival of a passenger rail system in the United States. TRAC would hold public hearings around the country to ensure that the public and other stakeholders were given the opportunity to be heard and in this way make the realignment process as fair as possible. In addition to economic data, TRAC would also review nonmonetary data such as the contributions made by certain routes toward alleviation of airport congestion, pollution abatement, and energy conservation. TRAC would also examine alternative modes of transportation in rural areas, as well as look at uses communities could make of abandoned rail lines. Under my proposal, no segment of the Amtrak system would be exempt from review. All routes would be carefully scrutinized. TRAC would also examine ridership forecasts and other assumptions underlying the Northeast corridor, especially in light of on-going electrification efforts. This electrification project currently has a price tag of about $3.2 billion, with nearly $1.2 billion already appropriated. There is, however, an important factor which I mentioned earlier that I must reiterate which affects Amtrak's costs and efforts to achieve profitable operations. The Rail Labor Protection Act mandates payment of 6 years of full benefits to any rail worker who loses his or her job due to a route closure. As a result, many of the most unprofitable routes would actually cost even more to close than to keep going, albeit limping along at a loss. In fact, under the ``30-mile'' rule-- also part of current law--an Amtrak employee is entitled to demand the full 6 year severance package if he or she is merely relocated 30 miles or more. No union workers in the private sector are afforded such generous severance compensation, and these astronomical costs are one of the reasons that every trip on Amtrak costs American taxpayers $25. After conducting a thorough, system-wide economic review, TRAC would make its recommendations to Congress. These recommendations would then be considered by Congress under an expedited procedure--an accelerated time frame for consideration, with no amendments permitted, and an up- or-down vote. TRAC would be comprised of 11 members. The President would appoint three members including the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, one representative of a rail labor union and one member of rail management. The majority leadership in the House and Senate would each appoint four members, in consultation with the minority leadership in both bodies. Members serving on this commission would offer expertise in rail finance, economic analysis, legal issues, and other relevant areas. Saving passenger rail service requires objective analysis and urgent remedies. If Amtrak is to survive, and I want to emphasize my support for its survival, we must get out of the way and allow it to be run in a manner consistent with sound business practices. We must allow objective, business principles to govern Amtrak operations rather than outside considerations or constraints. Finally, we must be able to justify to taxpayers, whatever decisions we make regarding Amtrak and this is best accomplished based on sound assessments and recommendations. I believe the TRAC legislation can help move Amtrak into the next century as a viable part of the Nation's transportation system and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to ensure that the job of Internal Revenue Service Commissioner is filled by a person well qualified for this important, sensitive position who is insulated from political vagaries and undue influence. Are certain nonprofit groups the targets of IRS audits? Is the IRS motivated by politics in determining which individuals or groups are audited? Shortly after the White House Travel Office employees were fired in 1993, IRS auditors began auditing UltraAir, a charter air company which had done business with the Travel Office and which was the subject of unfounded rumors about securing Travel Office work using kickbacks. Two years later, and after untold costs to the Government and the airline, UltraAir was cleared of any wrongdoing. Was this audit one of political retribution or an attempt to justify Travel Office firings? Are IRS functions governed by objective interpretation and application of the tax code or are they directed by other interests? Almost daily, news reports are filled with allegations that the IRS is actually being run by politicians rather than career professionals, mindful of the fact that a well-placed, well-timed audit could have significant political rewards. Far too many believe the IRS is an agency manipulated by powerful people with political motives. Far too many believe that the IRS is used as a political tool of the presidency--perhaps used to distract the opposition--perhaps an audit will work to divert the opposition's time, attention, and resources toward tax compliance matters rather than in pursuing their ideological goals. Can we call in the IRS and neutralize the opposition? Ask your constituents what they fear most from the Federal Government and nearly all will say that one of their greatest fears is learning that they are being audited by the IRS. Not only does the IRS audit raise great concern, but for many who find themselves the focus of an audit, those concerns are compounded by the strongly held view that the agency may be politically motivated. When the IRS Commissioner serves at the pleasure of the President, the perception is that the Commissioner may be swayed to operate the IRS in a manner that pleases the White House and may even agree to pursue audits as directed or do other things to be assured continued employment. Is this perception reality? Stories abound of misuse or abuse of IRS power for political purposes--in this administration and in previous administrations throughout history. This is wrong. The IRS must be above partisan politics. Taxpayers-- individuals and organizations alike--must be assured that one of the most important agencies in the Federal Government is run in a fair, nonpartisan manner. Americans deserve to rest easy knowing that the IRS is working in an objective, even-handed way to assess and collect taxes owed to the Federal Government. Americans deserve this. That is why I am today introducing legislation which bolsters the integrity of the Internal Revenue Service by ensuring that the IRS is managed by an independent Commissioner, judged by his or her peers to be well-qualified to run the agency. My bill does two important things. First, the legislation establishes a new objective selection process for the IRS commissioner. Second, the legislation establishes a set 6- year term for the Commissioner, and thereby provides an important degree of independence from the President. Under the provisions of this legislation, 150 days prior to the expiration of the Commissioner's term, or when a vacancy occurs, a special selection commission is established to consider potential candidates for commissioner. This commission will be comprised of peers qualified to assess the qualifications of potential candidates. Specifically, the commission will consist of five individuals having professional contacts with the IRS, appointed by the following organizations: First, a representative from the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants who is a certified public accountant; second, a representative from the American Bar Association who is a member of the Tax Division; third, a scientist from the National Academy of Scientists; fourth, an engineer from the Institute for Electronic and Electrical Engineers; and fifth, an economist from the American Economics Association. No later than 60 days after the commission is established, the commission submits to the President a slate of qualified candidates. The President then selects his nominee from that slate. Once approved by the Senate and sworn in, the new IRS commissioner then serves for a 6-year term. This selection process is similar to the process used to select the comptroller of the General Accounting Office. In that instance, a special commission--comprised of members of the House and Senate--is established to consider potential candidates for the position and to present to the President a slate of qualified candidates for his consideration. This process has worked well for many years and has resulted in well-qualified persons serving as comptroller. I am convinced that the position of IRS Commissioner would benefit from a similar commission comprised of qualified individuals routinely doing business with the IRS. Let us follow the model provided and establish a selection commission for the IRS Commissioner. My legislation ensures that strong, qualified candidates are selected for IRS Commissioner and further ensures that the Commissioner is afforded necessary insulation and distance from attempts to make the IRS a tool for the party in power in the White House. We must give taxpayers renewed confidence in the IRS and in its ability to fulfill its mission in an unbiased, even-handed manner. My bill will do just that and I urge its support.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and honor for me to rise today to honor retired Navy Capt. Giles Norrington, of northern Virginia, and other former prisoners-of-war as a very important date approaches. On March 14, 1973, Captain Norrington and dozens of other American servicemen were released from captivity in North Vietnam. Their bravery and courage have always served as an inspiration for us. These true American heroes endured brutal and unspeakable conditions to emerge from captivity and demonstrate to every American how lucky we are to be able to call them our own. Here in Congress, we are fortunate to have former POW's such as Senator John McCain, and Congressman Sam Johnson among us. They are true leaders, like many other former POW's who have come home to lead our Nation into the 21st century. The sacrifices of our POW's on our behalf should always be remembered. Mr. Speaker, as we approach this historic date our POW's deserve our humble gratitude and prayers. I know I speak for many in thanking these brave servicemen for their service to our Nation and wish each and every one of them the best in the future.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the state of affairs at the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]. Vacancies at the highest levels have left the FAA leaderless, rudderless, and unable to meet its responsibilities to the aviation industry and the flying public. Last summer, then FAA Administrator David Hinson announced his plans to return to the private sector before the end of the year and in November he was gone. Since that time--and despite the months of advance notice provided--the position has been vacant. It's now March and there is no appointed Administrator. The President has not even nominated someone for the position. Not only that, Deputy Administrator Linda Daschle, who had been serving as Acting FAA Administrator, left the agency in January. Another interim Acting Administrator was recently named, but there is now no appointed Administrator and no Deputy Administrator. Compounding that, the department heads of regulation and certification, and airports have each been on the job for less than a year. The agency responsible for keeping the Nation's airspace safe has no direction. What's more, career employees with experience in some of the most critical departments at the agency are leaving. But I do want to make clear that there are many dedicated, experienced career personnel who, day in and day out, keep the FAA running and our skies safe under very trying conditions. Since last July, I have been urging the President to nominate a qualified permanent Administrator for the FAA. I have written to the President on three separate occasions--July 30, 1996; November 18, 1996; and January 27, 1997--urging him to act quickly on this important nomination, and I ask unanimous consent that these letters be included in the Record. Again today, I implore the President to act. Last year, Congress included provisions in the FAA reauthorization legislation to establish a National Civil Aviation Review Commission to study safety, airport capital needs, and ways to meet those needs, and FAA operational needs and ways to meet those needs. The Commission must report back to Congress with detailed analysis and recommendations no later than 1 year after the date of enactment--no later than October 9, 1997. Guess what? The Commission has not begun work because its members still haven't been named. Thirteen of the 21 members of this Commission are to be appointed by the Secretary of Transportation and not a single commission member has been appointed. Only 7 months are left for the Commission to do its work. This is a critical assignment and yet nothing is happening. Meanwhile, there's the issue of aviation taxes. We have lost $5.2 billion in aviation taxes due to funding disputes over FAA financing. These taxes expired at the end of 1995, were reinstated briefly in August 1996, expired again at the end of the year and were just recently reinstated but only for 6 months. And the FAA didn't even notice that these taxes were not being collected last year, resulting in a near crisis. Shouldn't the FAA have been working to avoid this current crisis? Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Last year's ValuJet and TWA accidents underscored the need to improve aviation safety and airport security. The media has reported frightening tales of how fraudulent, bogus parts get inside our commercial airliners. Last year, air traffic centers all over the country experienced breakdowns in important radar and communications systems. Who at the FAA is looking at this? Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Not only is the FAA plagued by a leadership and experience void which continues to grow, I believe the FAA is spinning its wheels and wasting too much time, attention, and energy on matters not really crucial to its critical mission of ensuring aviation safety. Far too much time has been spent arguing about new organizational arrangements for the FAA. It happens almost like clockwork. Six months go by--so it must be time for the FAA to reorganize. Since then mid- 1980's, various groups have recommended changes ranging from the creation of an independent FAA to the establishment of a private, nonprofit corporation. This was typified by a late-1980's study by the National Academy of Sciences, which included a 60-page appendix titled, ``Organizational Options for the FAA.'' Since then, for at least 10 years, we've been arguing about how the FAA should be organized, and where it would get its money from, instead of debating how the FAA could be more efficient and effective at improving aviation safety. More recently, after 3 years of extraordinary financial losses in the airline industry, Congress in 1992 created the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry. That Commission's final report, issued in August 1993, recommended with little supporting evidence that the FAA be converted to a Federal corporation. With no additional evidence, the National Performance Review, headed by Vice President Gore, endorsed this recommendation in its report, issued 1 month later. The push was then on to build support for the new Federal corporation initiative and ongoing efforts for FAA reform were shelved. Reform was seen as undermining support for the new corporation because, if effective reform were possible, maybe a corporation was not needed after all. So all reform efforts in the agency were effectively stopped during the 1992-93 timeframe. The problem is, neither the Commission, the National Performance Review staff, nor the administration checked with the Congress to see if this corporation idea had any chance of being enacted. If they'd bothered to ask, they would have soon learned that the idea had no support on Capitol Hill. Finally, a year later, the administration realized the corporation concept had gained little support among either Democrats or Republicans in Congress. But rather than go to the heart of the problem and start the reform process, they developed a new ``mega-proposal''--user fees to fully finance the FAA. Keep in mind that only a couple of years before, the issue of financing for the agency itself was not an identified concern. We have annual budget hearings and financing concerns were never mentioned. But all of a sudden, in the late spring 1994, financing became the preeminent issue. Not aviation safety. Not management reform. But long- term funding stability. It is still the administration's view that FAA should be made more ``business like'' by converting to a rate setting agency, like the old Civil Aeronautics Board, and the President's budget just recently submitted proposes to begin collecting billions of dollars in unspecified fees about 18 months from now. The administration has changed its focus, rejecting the corporation concept in favor of the push for user fee financing. We are witnessing something very much like the legend of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. What has happened at the FAA over the past 5 years? The fiddling goes on while the agency deteriorates. While the administration stalls on nominating leaders to run the FAA, draws and redraws FAA's organizational chart, and debates who gets to foot the FAA's bills, the agency responsible for the safety of the flying public spirals downward. Let me offer one example. Over the past 3 years, FAA cut over 5,000 people from its rolls because the Department of Transportation gave them a disproportionate share of the total reductions needed for Governmentwide downsizing. These cuts were quick and severe--allocated by a department claiming to desire ``business like'' operations for the FAA. Understandably, morale plummeted. Morale was so low that when buyouts were offered, the FAA was surprised at how many of its experienced people left. And all this was happening while air traffic was rising, new air carriers were being approved for operations, and economic competition in the industry was becoming more cutthroat. In short, the need for FAA safety was never more necessary. When the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee added funds to FAA's budget in June 1993 to hire more safety inspectors and to buy spare parts for radars and other air traffic control equipment, the agency refused the funds. They said the money wasn't needed and could not be accommodated, given the FAA's downsizing plan. When funds were added to move controllers to those locations where air traffic was increasing, the FAA said the funds were not needed. Why was this happening? The agency's focus was not on improving its field operations, but on lobbying for corporate status. We heard in last year's testimony on the ValuJet accident about how safety inspectors in the field were told they had to work harder because the agency had no more staffing. These problems were known to employees in the field, and they could have been fixed with stable, focused management attention. Now, suddenly, surprise--the FAA is decrying the insufficient staffing levels at the agency. In the fiscal year 1997 transportation appropriations act, Congress provided funding to support hiring 500 new air traffic controllers, 367 new aviation safety inspectors and other regulatory oversight personnel. As of January 31, 1997, only 17 new controllers had been hired. As of that same date, 133 controllers left the job. For fiscal year 1998, the administration again proposes to increase staff in several areas deemed critical: Air traffic controller staff is to increase by another 500; safety inspectors and the certification work force is slated to increase by 273; and the security work force is to increase by 173. What happened? Why is the FAA suddenly facing a staffing crisis? Who was running the FAA and why weren't they focusing on these critical management concerns? Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Even when the FAA has been afforded a real opportunity for management attention and reform, it has been slow to take advantage. Congress freed the FAA from what the agency said were burdensome procurement and personnel rules about 18 months ago. Yet we've seen no significant personnel reform since then, and recent GAO reports indicate that procurement reform is going slowly. We were told that such fundamental reforms would address two of the agency's major problems, and would lead to more efficiency and cost savings. Yet, because so little has been implemented, there is little evidence of improvement or savings. An independent financial assessment of the FAA said the same thing--the agency has been too slow to take advantage of these fundamental reforms. And what about the third problem so much discussed over the past 2 years--the need for fundamental financing reform? You might remember the FAA claims that a $12 billion budget gap in their long-range forecasts required a totally new way to finance the agency. They talked of a crisis, in order to get more money to spend. But before the ink was dry, the GAO found flaws in FAA's estimates. Soon after, the FAA acknowledged the estimate was perhaps not as precise as it could be. Both general aviation and commercial airlines were clearly skeptical. To help get to the bottom of this mess, Congress legislated an independent assessment of these costs, which will be considered by a Civil Aviation Review Commission--the very Commission I mentioned earlier which has yet to be named. The assessment, conducted by Coopers and Lybrand, was recently completed and is extremely critical of FAA's financial management. It proved that the FAA's estimate of a budget gap is very soft, and there are significant opportunities for cost savings which the agency has not yet explored. They said, and I quote, ``the FAA can't manage money.'' Coopers and Lybrand made a number of startling findings in its report, including the following: The costs to operate the FAA are uncertain; the FAA's program managers have not demonstrated an understanding of financial management; opportunities for cost savings exist in staffing and personnel as well as facility consolidation and closures. Here, too, we have a failure of management, a failure at the highest levels to deal with basic issues at the FAA. In the meantime, though, the FAA is still managing its programs as if the shortfall were real. They are stretching out or terminating modernization programs because of a presumed lack of funding. They propose to slash airport development grants by one-third, and at the same time telling airports to now buy their own landing aids and lighting systems. They are proposing drastic reductions in human factors and aviation weather research--the two leading causes of aviation accidents. They terminate safety programs like the ASDE-3 radar which provides enhanced safety for aircraft maneuvering on the ground. In short, we are seeing a retreat on our commitment to modernize air traffic control equipment and airports around the country while large increases in the safety work forces cause the budget to spiral out of control. New user fees are on top of the assumed continuation of existing user fees totaling $100 million approved in the fiscal year 1997 appropriations act, yet no such fees have been collected thus far. What are the details of the FAA's user fee proposal? I have asked both the FAA and the Department of Transportation for details but have received no additional information. How can we responsibly assess the administration's proposal without the fine print? The FAA is adrift in turbulent waters, leaderless and rudderless. Although Congress helped the agency rid itself of the antiquated procurement rules, the FAA has not used that freedom to much advantage, and they have lost considerable ground in the administration's internal battles of the budget. The FAA's capital budget is going down just as the requirements are going up, and user fees are not making any difference. We have spent years arguing about how to finance and organize the air traffic control system. We have wasted years arguing whether or not this kind of tax is better than that kind of tax. If we don't stop looking--and start acting--soon, the FAA will run out of time. Is anybody there? Does anybody care? One final point. A study prepared by Boeing suggests that based on the current rate of air travel, by the year 2015, there will be a major crash every 8 days somewhere in the world. A major crash every 8 days. What is the FAA doing to change this horrific projection? It is imperative that steps be taken now to shore up the FAA. The President must act now to nominate an administrator and institute necessary leadership and management at the highest levels in the FAA. The FAA must focus on its critical mission--aviation safety and airport security. The flying public must be confident that the FAA is on the job, committed to fulfilling its mission of ensuring the best possible air traffic control systems and the safest skies and airports. We must be assured that the FAA is there and the FAA does care about the safety of the flying public. We will accept nothing less. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC, January 27, 1997. Hon. William J. Clinton, The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: On two previous occasions, I have written to you regarding the nomination of a permanent Administrator for the Federal Aviation Administration. In the first of those letters, dated July 30, 1996, I outlined my views of the essential qualities which the FAA Administrator should have during this critical time in the agency's history. In the second letter, dated November 18, 1996, I urged the nomination of a new Administrator as soon as possible. I have enclosed copies of those letters for your review, but in summary they suggest the following qualities of leadership for the next administrator: 1. A clear vision for the future of aviation based on a lifetime of experience and association. 2. Skills in leadership and management of a large and diverse organization. 3. Someone who is willing and able to stay in the position for at least four years, with even longer tenure being desirable. There are now rumors circulating that individuals being considered for this position have backgrounds not steeped in aviation, safety, or management of a large and diverse workforce, but in general policy development. I hope you will consider beforehand the disastrous effect that a weak nomination could have for this agency, including its relationship with the Congress over the next few years. It has now been nearly three months since Administrator David Hinson left the agency. This Friday, Deputy Administrator Linda Daschle (who has been serving as Administrator in an acting capacity) will leave the agency. With these departures, the agency is in desperate need of permanent executive leadership. I am very disappointed in your administration's failure to nominate a qualified individual for this critical position in a timely manner, especially since former Administrator Hinson made public his plans to leave approximately six months ago. I believe only negligence could allow this situation to continue, and I urge in the strongest terms that you nominate a qualified individual for the position of FAA Administrator within the next two weeks. Frank R. Wolf, Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies. Enclosures. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 30, 1996. Hon. William J. Clinton, The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: I am writing about the position of administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. I understand that the current administrator, Mr. David Hinson, plans to return to the private sector at year's end. Having worked closely with the FAA and its administrators since my appointment in 1985 to the Subcommittee on Transportation of the House Appropriations Committee, I want to share with you some thoughts on this important posting. Because commercial aviation is undergoing spectacular growth, because technologies associated with aviation are developing with lightning speed and because existing control systems necessary to ensure safe, rapid and reliable air travel are approaching the end of useful and effective life and must soon be replaced at tremendous cost, it may be wise to reflect on what type of special person is needed to lead the FAA as it faces these formidable challenges. This is an especially critical time for the FAA with the renewed focus on and need for air safety coupled with today's threats of terrorism targeted at the flying public. It seems clear that the future of the FAA will most certainly not be ``business as usual.'' Mr. Hinson's replacement must have a solid founding in the aviation community but not be a captive of it. He or she must have a clear vision for the future based on a lifetime of experience and association. There is little time to ``come up to speed''; responsibilities and decisions will not wait. Whomever is selected must be steeped in aviation, inculcated in the past but not wedded to it. It is equally important to select someone skilled in management and leadership, not only to direct this huge and diverse organization, but to help it change course as necessary. Someone is needed who can anticipate the demands of tomorrow and instill teamwork and coordination at all levels of the FAA to get the job done. For example, the job of installing a new air traffic control system is alone a massive undertaking. But to do so while continuing to ensure safe and reliable flight during the proving and conversion period adds immeasurably to the difficulty of the process. Where safety is concerned, there is little room for error. Of equal importance is to select someone with a long term commitment to the task at hand. If there has been a shortcoming in the selection of previous administrators it is that no one has been around long enough to get the job done. Each new person has approached the task differently with different priorities, different objectives and different ways of going about things. The technology learning curve is always too steep. By the time an administrator becomes comfortable in the job, he has moved on and the process must begin anew. During the relatively short time I have been on the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Hinson is the sixth person to serve as administrator. This seems to me to be too much turnover and too little continuity and we can no longer afford to continue this practice. I hope you will look for someone who will accept the challenge of leading the FAA for four or five or even ten years. Someone should be chosen who will be able to take an idea from the drawing board, shepherd it through development, implementation and follow-up and see it become operational. Change takes time and an administrator is needed who will be accountable for the duration of the process. I hope you will ignore the clamor of special interests and political expedience and select as the next FAA administrator someone with experience, vision, wisdom and skill to lead the aviation community and the traveling public who rely upon it, into a long period of safe and reliable operation. I hope these thoughts are helpful to you. Best regards. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC, November 18, 1996. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: I am writing to urge you to appoint a new administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration as soon as possible. Given the serious outstanding issues of aviation safety, FAA reform, and aviation system financing, I believe it is imperative that a full-time administrator be in place quickly. Administrator David Hinson has left this position, and the agency is currently being led by Deputy Administrator Linda Daschle, who has indicated she would not accept the position of Administrator. Mr. Monte Belger, a career official of the agency, has been designated Acting Deputy Administrator during the interim period. The new administrator will need some time to adjust to the position before wrestling with the many issues the agency will face over the coming year. For starters the aviation ticket tax will expire on December 31, 1996, and the airport and airway trust fund will be out of money sometime next summer. Because of this, the controversial subject of air traffic control user fees will be hotly debated this spring. The complexity of this subject and its impact on the various aviation interest groups would be a daunting task for any new administrator, and especially one who arrives in January, just as the new Congress begins working on the issues. In addition, the FAA has many outstanding issues related to aviation safety which require full-time executive leadership. Safety and security improvements resulting from the ValuJet and TWA 800 crashes are only just beginning, and will require strong follow-up. Improved vigilance over suspected unapproved (including counterfeit) parts has started, but constant attention by top management is needed. And commissioning of new safety equipment such as the terminal doppler weather radar requires strong leadership due to local opposition in some areas. Other important work which must be accomplished in 1997 includes development of a new compensation system and negotiation of new five-year union contracts for air traffic controllers and maintenance personnel; definition of the next generation ``National Airspace System Architecture Plan''; and coordination with the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety and Security and the National Civil Aviation Review Commission. Many of these activities are already underway and will require the new Administrator's personal knowledge and intervention to be successful. In short, this year promises to be a very challenging one for the FAA, and it is no time for the agency to be without a full-time administrator appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. I have previously expressed my view that the next administrator should have strong aviation credentials, and I am enclosing an earlier letter to you which summarizes those views. I urge you to do whatever you can to ensure that a new FAA administrator is nominated quickly--before the Christmas holiday if possible. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, on January 21, 1997, the United States lost one of its finest public servants, Ambassador Samuel G. Wise. In his 20 years of service in the State Department and the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Ambassador Wise sought to advance the precious principle of democracy. His diplomatic skills, recognized worldwide, helped forge an international consensus on human rights and an effective process to hold states accountable to the Helsinki principles. Through his work, many lives were saved and democracy was strengthened. I first met Sam soon after being appointed to the Helsinki Commission in 1989. I did not know him very well, but his reputation was one of a kind with a good heart for people. He did not seek the limelight, but instead labored quietly and nobly behind the scenes. His work will live on in the effective organization he helped create and the human rights standards he helped strengthen. He will be sorely missed. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Mary, and his family during this time of loss.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased today to see the editorial, which I will submit for the Record, in the Washington Post about East Timor. Like many issues in Washington, one minute it is hot and the next minute it is not. The editorial writer cautions, ``The Nobel Peace Prize brought a brief flare of publicity to East Timor's just but long neglected case, and then, just as Indonesia's government hoped, world tension turn elsewhere.'' But we must not let East Timor drop off the radar screen. For over 20 years the people there have suffered and fought for their human rights, and it would be immoral to let them down now. The United States needs to focus on this issue more. We need to make it a higher priority with regard to our foreign policy. In November, Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo shared the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize and he was nominated for the prize by our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall]. He was nominated for his efforts to encourage peace, reconciliation and human rights. In January, I had the opportunity to visit Bishop Belo in East Timor. I found people were scared, scared of being arrested in the middle of the night; scared of being tortured; scared of disappearing without a trace. People I talked to had had family members who were killed or who had disappeared. We heard reports of police breaking into homes in the middle of the night and arresting young people. We met one young man whose ear had been slashed by the Indonesian security forces. People were afraid to talk to us, ever conscious of the pervasive military and security presence on the island. I felt like I was back in Romania in 1985 under the tyranny of Nicolae Ceausescu. Last week I met with Jose Ramos-Horta, who shared the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize with Bishop Belo. He came to Washington to raise awareness of the conflict and told stories of torture and repression on the island. The United States, and the administration in particular, has an obligation to illustrate to the world that campaign donations have nothing to do with their policy in this region. We have an obligation to speak out and use our influence with the Indonesian Government. We should encourage Jakarta to negotiate a peaceful settlement and in the meantime reduce the repressive and heavy-handed police presence on the island. We should urge them to allow human rights monitors. We should appoint a prominent American to work on this issue full time. This person would enhance the good work already being done by the United Nations and U.S. Ambassador Stapleton Roy. A more aggressive diplomatic effort by the U.S. Government is needed. I have raised this issue with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. I have urged them to prioritize this issue in U.S. foreign policy. But I rise today to urge anyone who cares about East Timor to do the same. I urge Members of Congress, religious leaders, human rights activists and anybody who is concerned, contact Secretary Albright, contact Sandy Berger at the White House and urge them to focus on this issue. Write them. Call them. Fax them. These are the people in our Government who will be looking at this issue. These are the people who need to know that Americans care. The East Timorese are entitled to decide for themselves who they want to run their affairs. Mr. Ramos-Horta is calling for a plebiscite, a referendum. This is an idea worth considering. In the meantime they are entitled to live in peace and without fear of repression. Encouraging the Indonesian Government to resolve this conflict once and for all is the least we can do as a country dedicated to freedom and justice and democracy. This is an important issue for the United States. It is an important issue for the people of East Timor, who have suffered for 20 years. Let President Clinton, let Secretary Albright, let Mr. Berger know that you care. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the editorial to which I referred: [From the Washington Post, Mar. 4, 1997] Off the Screen Again Last October the Nobel Peace Prize went to two leaders of East Timor, a distant South Pacific island where a small population has been valiantly resisting Indonesian colonization for more than two decades. The prize brought a brief flare of publicity to East Timor's just but long- neglected cause, and then--just as Indonesia's government hoped--world attention again turned elsewhere. Last week, one of the Nobel laureates, Jose Ramos-Horta, came to Washington, hoping to put East Timor back on the international agenda. Over the years, the United States has offered little assistance. Anxious to please a Cold War ally, U.S. officials looked the other way when Indonesia occupied East Timor in 1975 and when tens of thousands there died from what the Nobel committee listed as ``starvation, epidemics, war and terror.'' President Clinton, early in his term, seemed ready to reverse traditional U.S. policy. His administration supported a United Nations resolution criticizing Indonesia on human rights, and in 1993 Mr. Clinton raised the issue of East Timor with Indonesian President Suharto. But then Mr. Clinton decided that trade mattered above all, and the plight of East Timor again receded from U.S. policy screens. Last week, Mr. Ramos-Horta, a kind of unofficial foreign minister, for the first time secured a meeting with senior officials in the State Department. This is a positive, if small, step forward. It should be followed by more action. Indonesia is a modernizing nation of nearly 200 million people who live on 6,000 islands. Its own interests are not served by keeping captive 600,000 Timorese living on one of those. Mr. Ramos-Horta is asking only for a plebiscite so the East Tiomorese can decide their own future. It's a reasonable request.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, last week the House Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations and Related Agencies kicked off its hearings on the fiscal year 1998 transportation appropriation legislation. For 2 days the subcommittee received testimony from Members of Congress and public witnesses on transportation policy and funding, including issues related to public transportation. Many, many witnesses representing mass transit organizations and properties located across the country stressed the urgent mass transit needs now existing, the greater needs projected for the future, and the need for additional spending for public transportation. Earlier last month the President presented his fiscal year 1998 budget proposals, and the budget request for public transportation falls far short of the needs articulated by the witnesses who testified last week. In fact, the Clinton budget proposes to hold the line on public transportation funding at current spending levels, calling for a reduction of 1 percent from last year's level. Clearly the transportation community is at an important crossroads. Identified mass transit needs far outstrip the President's budget proposals. Under even the rosiest of economic projections, and 602(b) allocations, Congress will never, never be able to fund all of these transit needs. Further complicating this situation is the upcoming expiration of ISTEA. As Members know, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, known as ISTEA, expires at the end of fiscal year 1997. Already, in fact, beginning last year, States and their Governors and transportation departments, Amtrak and commuter rail users, environmentalists and bicyclists, highway folks and the transit community, are staking their positions on legislation to succeed ISTEA. It seems that everyone is an interested party in this discussion and every interest is in competition with each other. Are you interested in protecting the status quo, changing formulas, seeking major program reforms or otherwise merely looking to increase your relative take of this massive $150 billion authorization bill? There is a place for you in the debate. I understand there is a tongue in cheek expression making its way around the Capitol these days. That is that the reauthorization bill reported by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will be named ``Hot-Tea'' for Highway Only Transportation Efficiency Act, the implication being that the general authorization for the transit programs and many of the flexible funding provisions included within ISTEA that benefit the transit community will either be eliminated or greatly diminished while authorization for concrete and pavement will increase dramatically. I certainly support, strongly support highway spending and providing funding for concrete and pavement to build these necessary roads. However, highway programs must continue to be only one component of a balanced transportation program, one that meets the needs of highway users as well as those who depend on public transportation. To ensure balance in our comprehensive transportation program, we need to pull together to improve the current program structure and the delivery of services to those that use public transportation regularly. Public transportation is not just about using a sleek subway system when visiting the Nation's capital, nor is it simply about riding in San Francisco's famed street cars while vacationing on the West Coast, nor is it just about getting an earmark for a favored project back home, no matter how small the earmark may be, to ensure that one more transit project is listed in the appropriations legislation and thereby legitimized for continued funding through the lifetime of the project. No, public transportation is also about, really it is primarily about, getting people to work, getting children to school, providing the way for people to get to the hospital, to the store, to visit friends and relatives across town and across the country. Public transportation represents a vital transportation link for many people, including millions of Americans with disabilities. And without public transportation, many people would virtually be stranded, unable to venture beyond the confines of their neighborhoods. Simply stated, we need to change the way we view providing for public transportation. First, what are we spending on public transportation? Second, where is that money going? Third, are those funding decisions consistent and appropriate given budgetary constraints? Last, can we develop a comprehensive coherent public transportation program? This is our challenge and this is our goal. Do you know that annually the Federal Government spends over $4 billion on transit programs alone? These funds are provided to modernize older rail systems, to purchase and rehabilitate buses and rail cars, and to build or improve existing bus facilities, rail yards, stations and heavy and light rail systems in many of our Nation's cities. Where is that money actually going? Each year the transportation appropriations bill provides funds designated specifically for transit properties across the country. Last year Congress provided $4.4 billion for transit, of which over $800 million was provided for construction and design of some 54 transit projects, called new starts, throughout the country, and Puerto Rico. Are these funding decisions appropriate? The Federal Transit Administration currently has entered into 13 full funding grant agreements and expects to enter into two more very soon. These full funding grant agreements represent a commitment by the Federal Government to fund these transit new start projects through to their completion. The 13 funding grant agreements now in place represent a total of $5.4 billion in Federal commitments, of which nearly $3 billion remains to be funded. The FTA will have to maintain a grant portfolio of roughly $800 million per year through the year 2001 to fund these projects; $800 million per year for these projects alone, yet the President's budget for fiscal year 1998 requests only $634 million for all new start projects, nearly $170 million below the amounts negotiated by FTA for the full funding grant agreements. What does this mean? It means that FTA is further increasing the outyear commitments in its already limited portfolio and will increase the project costs as well. Is this our total commitment to public transportation and new starts? Not by a long shot. As I mentioned earlier, the fiscal year 1997 act provides new start funding for 54 projects. Obviously that is far more than the number of projects having full funding grant agreements. In short, we are providing funds for projects above and beyond those that have secured full funding grant agreements. The FTA also plans to enter into two additional full funding grant agreements this fiscal year. These agreements would add significantly to out-year commitments. It does not end here either. According to the FTA, there are currently 53 major investment studies now underway throughout the country that may lead to requests for new starts funding. These studies are examining a number of transportation alternatives and corridor alignments. Many of these studies are in their early stages but to date of the 53 major investment studies that have produced capital cost estimates, the total capital cost of these fixed guideway alternatives exceeds $30 billion. These figures are alarming. The new start program is increasingly oversubscribed and overcommitted. The cost of completing all projects in the development process at any one time vastly exceeds the amount of Federal funds that are available now and in the foreseeable future. Another interesting fact worth noting is that since fiscal year 1992, California has received nearly a quarter of all the funds in the new start program, more than any other State. In fact, the top three recipient States, California, New Jersey and Oregon today received more than half of the funds in the program during that period. In fiscal year 1998, the President's budget for new starts looks much the same. Of the $634 million proposed for the program, California is to receive almost one-third of the total funding. New Jersey would get 13 percent and Oregon would get 10 percent. Again, in fiscal year 1998, these three States account for more than half of the total amount requested of the new start program. For those of you considering light and heavy rail projects in your areas any time in the near future, let me just say this, under the current system, there are no funds available. In addition, one has to wonder whether some transit capital grants are being spent wisely today. The Congressional Budget Office looked at the cost effectiveness of various forms of public transportation assistance. Using Department of Transportation data to compute the total annualized cost per passenger-mile of these different forms of transit, CBO concluded that ordinary buses average 35 cents per passenger-mile; commuter rail averaged 65 cents per passenger-mile; heavy rail at $1.40 per passenger-mile; and light rail at $3.40 per passenger-mile, nearly a tenfold increase over buses. Yet what kind of transit have cities and other local governments been rushing to build with their Federal grants? Light rail Some transit advocates claim that only light rail can attract suburban commuters and stop the declining use of transit by the middle class. But almost every city that has built either light or heavy rail in the past 25 years has a smaller share of commuting by transit in 1990 than they did 10 years earlier. This is true in Portland, San Francisco and even here in Washington, DC. In fact, the only major city that has witnessed growth in mass transit's share over the last decade has been Houston, TX, and they are building busways in Houston, not a rail system. This brings me to my final point, which is really a call to action. What do we need to do? What can we do to develop a comprehensive coherent public transportation program which responsibly meets critical public transportation needs in a manner consistent with the reality of constrained resources? I do not claim to have the answer. But I do know this. The Federal Government is already overcommitted on transit spending, while new requests for funding, many of which would certainly meet identified needs, pour in, when large increases in spending for public transportation are not likely and when important programmatic changes are anticipated during reauthorization of ISTEA. Those of us who care about support of public transportation must be able to offer alternatives to the current methods of doing public transportation business. I challenge my colleagues to talk with transit managers, urban planners, as well as State and local officials to consider a number of questions, including the following: First, does the current new starts program structure encourage metropolitan areas to build fixed-guideway systems rather than an alternative that may be more appropriate but less likely to obtain Federal funding. Second, does the current system of providing Federal funds specifically for fixed-guideway, new start systems induce metropolitan areas to pursue more costly, less flexible systems compared to flexible route transit systems, such as buses, which can use rights-of-way that are shared by other vehicles? Third, should the current program be changed to provide more flexibility to State and local government and transit authorities to enable them to be more responsive to the needs of their particular communities? Fourth, does the current funding formula, 80 Federal/20 local match, have the effect of gold plating projects or providing incentive to pursue projects that transit districts and municipalities otherwise would not because of local financial limitations. Fifth, should we continue to fund projects in the very early stages of engineering and major investment studies, the cost of which can and perhaps should be paid from State and local funds to indicate strong local support, or limit appropriations to only those projects in their final design and construction? Sixth, should the current program be modified to provide priority funding or other preferences to projects supported by a greater local match? Seventh, should transit capital assistance be allocated to the States and localities in a way that mirrors Federal aid highway assistance to guarantee States a minimum return on the taxes they send to Washington? Eighth, what level of Federal funding should be made available for public transportation, and what should the source of this funding be? One thing is certain, public transportation is an integral part of the Nation's transportation network and a vital life link for many segments of our population. As such, there must be a continuing, strong Federal role in transit. Local transit systems are the beginning and ending point for inner city transportation and are therefore very much a part of our national transportation network. And road users should help pay for transit programs in some circumstances since they benefit from them. As public transportation reduces the number of automobiles on the road, it therefore reduces congestion on roads and bridges. Beyond this, however, our transit programs and policies must be updated. Budgetary constraints coupled with ISTEA reauthorizations demand that we develop new ways of dealing with public transportation. It is time to think differently, to be more innovative, creative and more efficient in the transit services we provide and the alternatives we present to our local boards, States, Federal Government and Congress.

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, last November, Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo and Dr. Jose Ramos-Horta were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts in bringing peace to East Timor. I had the opportunity to attend the ceremony in Oslo with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, Tony Hall, who nominated Bishop Belo for the prize in 1994 and 1995. I then had the opportunity to visit Bishop Belo in East Timor in January. As part of our bipartisan effort to recognize the Nobel Prize winners today, I am submitting for the Record the speech made by the chairman of the Nobel Committee when he presented the award. Address by Francis Sejersted, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, on the Occasion of the Award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1996 Your Majesties, Presidents, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen: On behalf of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, may I extend to everyone a warm welcome to this year's Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. It is one hundred years to the day since Alfred Nobel died. A year earlier, he had drawn up his will, in which he determined that his considerable wealth should provide for annual awards of five prizes, three for science, one for literature, and one for peace, to those whose work, as he wrote, ``shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind''. It was also laid down in the will that the Peace Prize should be awarded in Norway by a committee appointed by the Norwegian storting. Our thoughts today go also to Stockholm, where the other awards are being made, and where the centenary is being marked of the death of Alfred Nobel. Nobel was, of course, an unusually successful businessman. But that was not where his heart lay. His happiest times were spent in the laboratory. Inventions, it has been said, became for him a way of life. He was also very widely read. He was in other words greatly interested, indeed a believer, in science and literature. What was remarkable was his moral approach to those activities, which he saw as opportunities for promoting a better world. This perspective emerges most clearly in his decision concerning a peace prize. It can be argued that the invention of dynamite, and concern at the more powerful weapons which it made possible, contributed to his increasing commitment to peace. But there were other impulses, too, impulses which appealed to his deeply rooted moral instincts, first and foremost his contact with the future Peace Prize Laureate Bertha von Suttner and with the contemporary peace movement. Nobel left an important inheritance, consisting of a vision of a better world, and an award institution which was to contribute to the realization of that vision. We who have been entrusted with managing that inheritance do so in humility and with deep respect for the man Alfred Nobel, whose memory we honour today. It is with great pleasure, and in the conviction that with this year's choice we have managed Nobel's inheritance in the best possible way, that we welcome our Peace Prize Laureates today. Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo and Jose Ramos-Horta have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 1996 for their long- lasting efforts to achieve a just and peaceful solution to the twenty-year-old conflict in East Timor. To reach this peaceful winterland Norway, you have come about as far from your home country as it is possible to travel on this earth. Yet the distance between us is much shorter in miles than in opportunities for peace, justice and reconciliation. We are grateful and proud that, in the middle of your important and self-sacrificing work, you have found time for the journey here, thereby giving us this opportunity to honour you. The conflict in East Timor has been called ``the forgotten conflict''. It has not, however, been completely forgotten, having figured on the international agenda, with varying degrees of prominence, throughout those twenty years. But it has so to speak never caught on. There have been so many other interests and regards to attend to, and East Timor is so small. Rarely has the cynicism of world politics been more clearly demonstrated. The numerous considerations of ``Realpolitik'' have enabled an exceptionally brutal form of neocolonialism to take place. Of a population of between six and seven hundred thousand, nearly two hundred thousand have died as the direct or indirect result of the Indonesian occupation. And the violations are still taking place today. Many are the countries which have given higher priority to their ``Realpolitical'' cooperation with Indonesia than to regard for East Timor. This is the apparently hopeless situation in which our two Laureates have so untiringly striven for a just and peaceful arrangement for their people. The autumn of 1975 was fateful for East Timor. First the old colonial masters, the Portuguese, withdrew. Then an internal struggle broke out between the Timorese Democratic Union on the one hand and the Fretilin liberation movement on the other. And the autumn ended with the Indonesian invasion. In the twenty-one years that have passed since, this conquest of a country and a people has never been internationally recognised. Ramos-Horta was a Fretilin leader, one of the moderates whose ideal was social democracy. During the so- called civil war, he was out of the country, and on his return in September he tried to reconcile the parties. Since the invasion he has lived abroad, unceasingly and with great personal sacrifice collecting and communicating information on the repression, torture and killing in his home country, and acting as East Timor's principal international spokesman. At the same time he has successfully kept up his efforts to unite the various East Timorese groups in a single national front, while constantly seeking opportunities for a peaceful solution to the conflict with Indonesia, based on respect for the integrity of the East Timorese people. ``We used to joke that he was more an informal member of the Democratic Union than a Fretilin leader,'' says Union leader Joao Carrascalao. The remark illustrates the part played by Ramos-Horta as a mediator and conciliator. No serious negotiations aimed at resolving the conflict are conceivable today without the participation of Ramos-Horta or one of his aides, as Bishop Belo has also emphasized. As a relatively unknown priest, Bishop Belo was appointed Apostolic Administrator for the Roman Catholic church in East Timor in 1983, since when he has served on his home ground. Again and again, in the midst of everyday terror and suffering, he has intervened, trying to reconcile and mediate and lessen confrontation, and in doing so he has saved many lives. Intervening in a violent conflict entails a risk of being crushed between the antagonists. ``Pray for me, please,'' he said in one such situation, ``because now I have to defend myself on both sides''. But Bishop Belo has become much more than a mediator: this man of peace has also become a rallying point for his sorely tried people, a representative of their hope for a better future. The love his people feel for this mediator springs from certain fundamental principles he has adhered to. Show the people respect. Give them freedom to develop their humanity to the full. Then ask them whether they want to be Indonesians, Portuguese, or independent. Bishop Belo shares with his people the insight of the oppressed, an insight deeper than that of generals or oppressors. Why all this brutality? It does not even serve its purpose. You do not gain respect if you do not show respect. This year has seen the commemoration, forty years on, of the Soviet Union's brutal crushing of the popular rising in Hungary in 1956. The West did not intervene. Since Hungary lay within the Soviet sphere of interest, it was necessary ``Realpolitik'' to accept the invasion. We would do well to recall that at that time, a marking of the event forty years later in a free Hungary lay beyond the bounds of what most people thought possible. It has been said that Indonesia's annexation of East Timor is a historic fact. But history has never established anything as a fact forever. History always moves on. If we have learned anything in the past decade, it must be that the most repressive regimes are the most fragile. There are forces in history more powerful than the strongest military force. Violence and terror do not lead to peace. Not until one builds up the courage to break out of the vicious circle of violence do opportunities arise for an enduring peace. The right to live, the right to full development as human beings, the right to respect, are at the heart of the concept of human rights. Since the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1960 to Albert Luthuli, work for human rights has been one of the principal criteria for the award. We have constantly received confirmation that this was the right path to take, although the choice of this criterion has also been criticized because it allegedly has nothing to do with peace. But it is precisely in forging a close link between the human rights criterion and peace that we believe we are realizing that criterion's most universal and most fundamental aspects. Peace, stability and harmony must be based on mutual respect. That, so simple and so universal, is the message. Once it has been heard, the next step is to institutionalise the respect, in various ways according to cultural traditions. Violence, on the other hand, systematic violence on the part of those in power, can never be justified within the framework of a universal concept of human rights. That is a fact to which the victims of violence could testify. Never forget to listen to the voice of the victims, the voice of the nearly two hundred thousand whose lives were lost in massacres or from the hunger and want which resulted from the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. This year's two Peace Prize Laureates, Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo and Jose Ramos-Horta, have labored tirelessly, and with great personal sacrifice, for their oppressed people. Under extremely difficult conditions, they have preserved their humanity and faith in the future. It is in admiration of their work and in the hope for a better future for East Timor that the Norwegian Nobel Committee today honors them with the Nobel Peace Prize for 1996.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the first resolution and in strong support of the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde resolution. Second, I want to make clear to people who are listening, I strongly support family planning. I am not one, there may be some who are opposed to family planning, I strongly support family planning and think it is very important. Third, the Smith-Hyde resolution moves the money out faster and, in some respects, actually more, because by moving it out faster the level is actually higher. Fourth, I will tell the people that are undecided on this issue there are more than enough groups in this country and in this world who are strong proponents and supporters of family planning who can use not only the money in this bill but double or triple the amount. So there are enough family planning groups that can take the money that are not connected with abortion and are not involved in controversial activities. We went through the same thing in Romania several years ago when this battle came and the House then sided for family planning but not for family planning groups that are involved in abortion. So I will say that the Smith resolution puts more money out faster, and there are more than enough family planning groups that are strong proponents of family planning who are not involved in abortion, to use the money under Smith-Hyde but to use double that money. Had my will been done, I would have increased the amount of money for family planning in the Smith-Hyde thing, although we were prohibited from doing that because family planning is important but not family planning to groups who are connected with abortion, which in many respects in China is one of the most criminal violations of human rights.

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, it has recently been reported that the President of the United States and the minority leader of the House are planning to appoint gambling advocates to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Should this come to pass, it would prevent a commission from doing any meaningful work. The President and the minority leader should not appoint individuals with a vested interest in the outcome of the report. They should appoint men and women of good will, able to make an objective and thorough review of gambling. Why? Because gambling is known to wreak havoc on small businesses, families, and our governmental institutions, and it is time to learn gambling's true impact on the Nation. As the Washington Post editorialized today, the commissioners were supposed to be appointed on October 2, 1996, prior to the election. Now we have learned that the gambling interests that once gave millions of dollars to both political parties also had a coffee with the President of the United States as some of the infamous White House coffees. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the Oneida Nation donated $30,000 to the Democratic National Committee on the day that Oneida Chairwoman Deborah Doxtator attended a White House coffee event. This administration is being scrutinized for the campaign contributions it has received in the campaign-related meetings it has had within the White House. Americans are rightly concerned, Americans of both political parties are rightly concerned, about the President meeting with drug dealers in the White House. They are concerned that China's biggest arms merchant, Mr. Wang, head of the Poly Corp. in China, who was trying to sell assault weapons to street gangs in California, was meeting with the President of the United States in the White House. What a disgrace. The president of the corporation that was selling assault weapons and even shoulder missiles to street gangs in California was meeting with the President of the United States. Their concern was favor-seeking Indonesian businessmen, and as everyone knows, the Lippo Bank in Indonesia, and I just returned from Indonesia 2 weeks ago where we went to the island of East Timor, where the first Catholic Bishop ever in the history of the world, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, and I might say he was appointed and recommended by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], from this side of the aisle, won the Nobel Peace Prize. The feeling out in Indonesia and now in the United States is that the Lippo Bank, which is an Indonesian bank, through the Riady family, which is close to the Clinton administration, gave money to the Clinton administration, which has now changed their policy on Indonesia. And we know that in Indonesia, in a little island of East Timor where 700,000 people of the Catholic faith are now being persecuted and the military fear that runs through the island as they are taking young people away in the middle of the night. So the American people are concerned about this. They are concerned about a reputed Russian mobster, Russian mobster in the White House with coffee, and as this administration says they are concerned about drugs, drug dealers at the White House. So therefore, they are concerned about this whole issue of campaign financing. Anything the White House does, rightly or wrongly, will be scrutinized in light of these factors. I call on the President to appoint three honest and decent Americans, people the American people can trust to conduct a credible study of the gambling industry. I urge the President to avoid the charge that his picks are political payola, mere kickbacks for financial support during the election. I agree with the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], who urged the President in a February 6 letter in saying, ``to place the National Gambling Impact Study Commission above politics and to consider appointments that the public can rely on to conduct a comprehensive and fair review of gambling.'' Because what we wanted in the commission, since gambling is spreading rampantly through the country, is an objective group of men and women who would study the issue of gambling and to see: has there been a problem on corruption, has there been a problem on crime, has there been a problem on addiction, whereby localities and State legislators and Governors could come to an objective place to see. And now we see that maybe the White House is talking of putting gambling interests on as their appointments. I am not suggesting, and let me say for the record, that the President should appoint antigambling people to the commission. He ought not appoint antigambling people, but the test should be whether the appointees are objective, whether they are connected to the industry in some way or any way, or are proponents of gambling. The American people are watching; the editorial writers and the newspapers of this country are watching in hopes that the President will do the right thing. In an October 31, 1995 letter to Senator Paul Simon the President wrote the following: I deeply appreciate your efforts to draw attention to the growth of the gambling industry and its consequences. Too often, public officials view gambling as a quick and easy way to raise revenues without focusing on gambling's hidden social, economic and political costs. I have long shared your view about the need to consider carefully all of the effects of gambling, and I support the establishment of the Commission for this purpose. I had an opportunity a year ago to be at the White House, where the President came and said to me he supported completely what we were trying to do on the National Gambling Commission. If the President was saying what he believes to me and to Senator Simon, why are they now talking appointing people connected to the gambling interest to be on the commission? Is this White House out of control? Does the President not know what his staff is doing? Is the President aware that his staff is making these recommendations? Are these on his desk? Will he speak out? Will he be involved? Mr. Speaker, I take the President at his word that he supports the need to consider carefully all of the effects of gambling. This can only be done, Mr. President, by an objective group of individuals willing to make a thorough and considered review of gambling. The Congress and the President may join together to establish other commissions in the future, to study issues such as Medicare and Social Security. Those commissions should not be loaded up one way or another so meaningful research is somehow thwarted. They should be above politics. If the President appoints gambling interests to this commission, can you imagine who he will appoint to the Medicare commission? Can you imagine who he will appoint to the Social Security commission? It will destroy the confidence that the country will have in his ability for objectivity and fairness. Likewise, the National Gambling Impact Study Commission will not be able to do its job if the panel is stacked with individuals linked to the industry. And it should be above politics. I urge the President, in the words of a February 5 Dallas Morning News editorial, it says not to ``give henhouse guard duty to the foxes.'' It says, do not ``give henhouse guard duty to the foxes.'' All the States that are holding referendums on this issue are all turning gambling down but one this last time, and they passed it 51 to 49. The President's own home State of Arkansas has turned gambling down, and now we hear that the White House is thinking of appointing gambling-interest people to this commission. I also would like to insert in the Record the Washington Post editorial where it says, The big money gamblers are betting a bundle on President Clinton to do their bidding today. Maybe Mr. Clinton will have some second thoughts, and well he should, about stacking a Federal commission established to examine the impact of gambling activities on the country. But that is not a very safe bet, given the background situation. Start with the guess-who's-coming-to-coffee list at the White House. Last March, for example, one White House coffee guest was the chairwoman of the Oneida Nation, an Indian tribe with gambling interests. On the same day, according to the Wall Street Journal, the Oneida Nation donated $30,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Coffee guest lists show at least 10 representatives of Indian gambling interests since mid 1995. Then it goes on to quote Mr. LaFalce, a supporter of our bill, to set up the national commission, and he wrote to the President last fall urging him to name individuals without vested interests in the outcome of the commission. In the followup letter last Thursday, Mr. LaFalce expressed his concern about the reported White House list urging the President to place the commission above politics. This is the end of the Washington Post editorial: Given the squalid state of money-ordered politics pervading Washington, that would be refreshing news. Also, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to insert the article from the January 25 Economist magazine where it talks about the reality of dawning in this Nation with regard to what is taking place on the gambling interest. It says, Many places have failed to understand that casinos, more than other forms of gambling such as lotteries, cause what economists call negative externalities. There is a price to pay in the rising costs of such things as law enforcement, street cleaning, and, some argue, the extra social services needed when gambling leads to the breakup of families. When these additional costs are taken into account, it is far from clear that gambling benefits anyone except the casino operators. Now the President stands here to address the Nation and talk about families. In fact, if you listen to both political parties, they talk about families and family values. Would it be a family value for the President to appoint three gambling-connected people to the Gambling Commission? Of course it would not be a family value for this administration to do that. The article goes on to say, Perhaps one-third of Americans never gamble, reckons Mr. Grinols. Many people who do are cautious, but a small percentage, perhaps 2 to 4 percent of the American adult population, are problem or pathological gamblers. These account for a disproportionately large share of the activity's costs. One study in Minnesota found that 10 percent of bettors, 10 percent of bettors accounted for 80 percent of all the money wagered. The article goes on to say, Their numbers may be small, but their impact is not. Problem gamblers have a high propensity to commit crimes, in particular, forgery, theft, embezzlement and fraud. These crimes affect both immediate family and colleagues at work. The American Insurance Institute estimates that 40 percent of white collar crime, 40 percent of white collar crime has its roots in gambling. Gamblers often descend in a spiral of increasingly desperate measures to finance their habit in the hope of recouping their losses. Further, even before they turn to crime, problem gamblers are unproductive employees, frequently absent or late, and usually distracted. A 1990 study in Maryland estimated that the State's 50,000 problem gamblers accounted for $1.5 billion in lost productivity, unpaid State taxes, money embezzled and other losses. It ends by saying, and I will insert the whole article in the Record, All this is potent evidence that casinos are a bad bet. But even if the effects of problem gambling are discounted, the fact remains that casinos are not a development tool either. The risk, which everyone was aware of at the outset, is not paying off. Without resorting to moralizing and even without mentioning organized crime, those who would clamp down on gambling can now make a formidable economic case. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I periodically will get calls from loved ones in a family who call and say, my husband committed suicide or my wife got addicted and committed suicide, and we will also hear from other families. And has the President had the opportunity to sit down and talk to some of the families who have lost loved ones because of this addiction? He sits down with the Oneida Indian tribe, he sits down with the gamblers from all around the United States, he takes their political money, but he will not sit down with a mom who calls about her son, or the wife who calls about her husband, and all of those who have been impacted. So I call on the President, I call on the President today to make a commitment to the American people not to appoint anti-gamblers; and let there be no misunderstanding, I personally am not for gambling, but I am not asking that anti-gamblers be on the commission. But I certainly am saying that pro-gamblers and those connected with the gambling interests in any way ought not be on the commission. When I think of all the good, honest, and decent people in this country, Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, who would be outstanding appointments to this commission, I call on the President to find three people like that, who have no connection, to demonstrate that the political contributions in this fall's campaign have had no bearing on it. Because I will tell the Members, we will scrutinize who is appointed to this commission. We will dig and we will follow it out. We will find out, whether it be through subpoena power or whatever, if there has been any connection. If there is any connection, we will demand that this Congress act, and we will demand that this administration act. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following documents.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago I returned from visiting Bishop Carlos Belo in the island of East Timor, which is under the military oppression of the governor of Indonesia. As our colleagues know, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] nominated Bishop Belo, the first Catholic priest ever to receive the Nobel peace prize. I will be taking out a full special order on that issue and trip, but I want to tell my colleagues that on the island of East Timor today the military occupation there is fear and terror. They are going through the island at 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning pulling young people out and taking them away. Many are fleeing to the hills. When this Congress has to deal with the issue of Indonesia and East Timor, we should do the right thing. Second, there is a concern among Indonesians that the Lippo Bank connection and the Riady family which dealt with Web Hubbell, may be tied into why this administration is not willing to take on the issue of East Timor. I challenge the Clinton administration to deal with the issue of East Timor and stand up for independence and get involved in this process so the killing and the fear and the terror will end. This administration has an obligation to deal with the issue of East Timor. Champion of a Forgotten People (By Paul Raffaelle) Bishop Carlos Belo knelt in his chapel in Dili, East Timor, for his early morning prayer. It was November 12, 1991, and as Belo prayed, 2000 people were gathering to march to the nearby Santa Cruz cemetery to protest the killing of a pro- independence activist by Indonesian intelligence agents. For 16 years the bishop's island home had been under the heel of the Indonesian military. Later that morning Belo heard bursts of automatic gunfire, then screams. Within minutes dozens of young people were racing in panic toward his residence. ``Hide us, or they will kill us!'' shouted a teen-age girl in a blood-soaked dress. ``Come inside, all of you!'' the bishop cried out, as more than 250 people crammed into his garden. He dispatched the wounded to Catholic clinics and then drove to the cemetery. Dozens of civilians, many ripped open by bullets, lay crumpled in the dust. Soldiers armed with assault rifles screamed obscenities at everyone in sight. Then the bishop saw a trail of gore leading to a chapel. Despite his fear, he rushed inside, where he found several people--some beaten, others with gaping bullet wounds--lying in pools of their own blood. Taking in the carnage, Belo silently vowed the world would know of his people's suffering, and began to pray for the dead and dying who surrounded him. In a remote land of the Malay Archipelago in southern Asia, a gentle people are stalked by terror. In the 21 years since Indonesia's invasion, it is estimated that almost one-third of East Timor's 700,000 native inhabitants have lost their lives. Countless thousands have been tortured or raped. Embattled Timorese still cling to hope embodied in the man they revere as the champion of their rights. It is not a destiny many would have expected for Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo. He was born in 1948 on a rice farm in Wailacalma, 100 miles east of Dili, the capital of the impoverished Portuguese colony. His widowed mother, a pious and reflective woman, introduced Carlos early to the thrill of books. He excelled in his Catholic schooling, and at 20 left to begin his studies for the priesthood in Lisbon. Turmoil came to East Timor in 1975, as Portugal prepared to cut its colony loose. West Timor, a former Dutch colony, had become part of Indonesian when the latter became independent in 1949. But Indonesia had no legitimate claim to the larger, eastern half rich in oil and natural gas. Belo was in Macau for further religious training when Indonesian troops attacked East Timor. Jets and naval ships bombarded towns. Soldiers wiped out entire villages. The few thousand ill-equipped resistance fighters scurried to the mountains. The government in Jakarta, Indonesia's capital, claimed that its soldiers had been ``invited in'' by the East Timorese to ``restore order.'' The United States and many other Western nations remained largely silent. And on July 17, 1976, Indonesia formally annexed the tiny nation. Convinced that he could best serve his people if he had the moral authority of a priest, Belo continued his religious studies. Meanwhile Indonesian troops burned crops, slaughtered livestock and herded almost half the population into camps, where thousands died. Belo's exile ended when he was ordained in 1981. He assumed the post of rector of the Fatumaca seminary near Baucau, East Timor's second largest town and by now headquarters of at least 10,000 troops. Everywhere he looked, soldiers strutted. After dropping his things off in Baucau, he traveled to his home village. His aged mother clasped his hands when he entered the family's modest home. ``The Indonesians have done terrible things to our people,'' she said. Over the next few days Belo was horrified to find only women and children in some villages. Thousands of males had been forced into the Indonesian army to fight against the East Timorese resistance. As aggrieved as he felt, he decided not to speak out. Better to accept Indonesian rule in the interests of peace. This cannot be, a stunned Belo thought as he studied the telegram. Just two years after his arrival in Baucau, the Vatican had chosen him to be East Timor's new Apostolic Administrator--the leader of the Catholic Church in his homeland. Among his concerns was that he had been picked solely because he wasn't likely to promote dissent. His fellow East Timorese clerics suspected worse. ``He's nothing but a puppet,'' they muttered in private. All 37 priests boycotted the installation ceremony. They're convinced that I'm an Indonesian stooge, Belo thought glumly. But the people had faith in him. Courageous East Timorese were regularly slipping into Belo's home to tell him about atrocities. One secret visitor was a middle-aged woman who had pulled a shawl over her face to hide her identity from army informers. ``The soldiers shot my son dead as he was walking across the fields,'' she whispered through sobs. Deeply moved, Belo placed a hand on her shoulder. ``I'll seek justice for you,'' he promised. At a reception the next morning, he approached Colonel Purwanto, the local commander of East Timor's occupation force, and told him the mother's story. Colonel Purwanto abruptly turned his back. Before long Belo lost count of the people who sought him out to report the disappearance, jailing, rape or murder of friends and family members. Belo confronted the local military commanders again and again, but was always dismissed. Meanwhile the Indonesian government tightened its grip on East Timor, luring more than 100,000 Indonesian migrants with free land and jobs. Soon most shops were owned by the newcomers. Their soldiers and bureaucrats thronged the streets. Military officers lived in the handsome waterfront villas. Dili no longer belongs to us, Belo realized. East Timorese clerics shared his outrage but also saw cause for hope in Belo's willingness to expose atrocities. ``Perhaps,'' they said, ``he has the backbone for this task after all.'' Belo was named bishop in 1988. This time, at his installation ceremony in Dili, he was flanked by smiling East Timorese clergy. Unfortunately, the task before Belo remained critical. The military continued slaughtering innocent East Timorese, while a campaign of cultural obliteration was equally relentless. TV and radio broadcasts in East Timor's lingua franca, Tetum, were barred. East Timorese students had to sing the Indonesian anthem before lessons and perform Indonesian songs and dances at school concerts. In November 1988 an enraged Belo ordered that a statement be read from all pulpits. ``We condemn the lying propaganda according to which abuses of human rights do not exist in East Timor,'' the message said. When a village leader passed on army boasts that they would soon crush the bishop and the Catholic Church, Belo responded with a resigned smile. ``One day the soldiers will kill me,'' he said. In February 1989 Bishop Belo wrote a letter to United Nations Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar. ``We are dying as a people,'' Belo wrote. He pleaded to the U.N. to conduct a referendum on independence in East Timor. It was a desperate move, but Belo could see that much of the world had come to accept Indonesia's annexation. The United States, Britain, Germany, Australia and others were major arms suppliers to Jakarta. Several weeks later Archbishop Francesco Canalini, the papal nuncio in Jakarta, summoned Belo. ``Keep out of politics!'' the portly archbishop thundered. Late-night callers threatened to kill Belo. But he remained defiant, and the people's admiration for him grew. Inspired, many East Timorese were converting to Catholicism. By 1990 the number of Catholics in East Timor had surged from 30 percent of the population to 85 percent. The bishop became the hero of the young as well, yet Belo could not be sure they supported his message of nonviolence. He knew they were ripe for rebellion when the 2000 East Timorese gathered in the Santa Cruz cemetery on that November 1991 morning to mourn their compatriot's murder--only to flee or die in a hail of bullets. Returning to his residence after viewing the carnage at the cemetery, Belo heard details of the onslaught: without warning the Indonesians had opened fire at point-blank range. An eyewitness account told of soldiers chasing young people down and shooting them in the back. The next morning Belo confronted the military commander, demanding to see the wounded and dead. At the military hospital the bishop moved tearfully among more than 200 injured youths, most in their teens. Three days later he returned to the hospital. Only 90 youngsters remained. Belo got a first inkling of the likely fate of the missing when a nurse paid him a visit. ``I washed the bodies of 78 murdered East Timorese,'' the nurse whispered. Later a medical aide told of military doctors giving some of the wounded lethal injections. A parishioner related that an Indonesian soldier confided he'd been forced to take part in the executions of dozens of the wounded. Trucks had taken them to an open mass grave in the hills, where they were sewn into rice sacks. ``The soldiers shot them one by one and pushed the sacks into the grave,'' said the distraught man. In all, more than 250 dies in the cemetery massacre and its aftermath. Belo helped smuggle two massacre eyewitnesses to Geneva, where they testified before the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Whatever it takes, Belo vowed, the world will learn about this evil. By 1993 East Timorese resistance had weakened, but atrocities continued. The bishop shared the grim details with journalists and reiterated his call for a U.N.-sponsored referendum. Finally foreign governments were moved to action. The U.S. Congress passed legislation requiring the White House to bar the sale and transfer of lethal crowd-control equipment and small arms to Indonesia until there was ``significant progress'' in human-rights conditions in East Timor. Australia's pro-Jakarta foreign minister, Sen. Gareth Evans, began criticizing Indonesia's human-rights record. Amnesty International issued a damning report of prisoner torture and ill treatment. Reacting to international outrage, Jakarta set up a 25- member national commission on human rights to monitor abuses. When soldiers near Dili executed six unarmed civilians in 1995, the commission found the killings ``unlawful,'' and a court-martial led to the jailing of two soldiers for up to 4\1/2\ years. ``It's a beginning,'' Belo told a Western reporter. Still the bishop often received several death threats a week. One Sunday in early 1995, several hundred East Timorese gathered in Belo's garden for Mass. ``Christ suffered so much for us,'' he said. ``But in his resurrection we see our own hope for the time when we are at last free.'' His sermon was a direct glimpse into his soul. For the bishop still trusts that freedom will come, that Indonesia will one day grant East Timor self-rule. But like every East Timorese, he also lives with an abiding fear. After the service Belo pulled aside a visiting journalist. ``We beg the outside world not to forget us,'' he said softly. ``If that happens, we are doomed.'' The world did not forget Belo and his people. In October 1996 the Nobel Committee honored the bishop and another East Timorese activist, Jose Ramos-Horta, with the Nobel Peace Prize, citing ``their work toward a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in East Timor.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, while the House was in recess in January, a former congressional colleague, retired Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas died after complications from cancer. I was a long-time admirer of Paul Tsongas, especially for the wisdom with which he approached life and the value he placed on his family. For many in public service, it often comes down to choices between the job and family. Do I attend the social event or go home for my son's birthday party? Do I go to the reception sponsored by a special interest group or attend my daughter's soccer tournament? With Paul Tsongas, there was no choice. Family came first and foremost. For several years I have used the way Paul Tsongas lived his life as an example in my speeches about family values. One of my favorite quotes from him is that he ``never heard anyone on their deathbed say, `I wish had spent more time with my business.' '' What are our personal priorities? People generally serve in the Congress because they want to help other people. But we need to remember that while we serve in Congress trying to help others, we do not forget those who matter most to us--our families. In some of my speeches I also use a quote by Dr. James Dobson from a book on the family. It says: I have concluded that the accumulation of wealth, even if I could achieve it, is an insufficient reason for living. When I reach the end of my days, a moment or two from now, I must look backward on something more meaningful than the pursuit of houses and land and machines and stocks and bonds. Nor is fame of any lasting benefit. I will consider my earthly existence to have been wasted unless I can recall a loving family, a consistent investment in the lives of people, and an earnest attempt to serve the God who made me. Nothing else makes much sense. That quote could very well describe the life of Paul Tsongas. Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas also recently highlighted Paul Tsongas' ``Strong and Positive Legacy'' and I would like to share that article with our colleagues. It certainly provides some food for thought for setting priorities in our lives. A Strong and Positive Legacy (By Cal Thomas) When a person dies prematurely, it prompts us to stop and contemplate our own lives and whether we are spending our time, like cash, to indulge our wants, or investing in relationships that will pay lasting dividends. Paul Tsongas, the former senator from Massachusetts, died last weekend of complications from cancer at age 55. Although we never met, and I was introduced to his wife Niki just once, Mr. Tsongas made a strong and positive impression on me. In a town where power is king, Mr. Tsongas never paid homage to the sovereign. He was such an infrequent guest on the Washington party circuit that socialites knew better than to invite him for cocktails or dinner after work. Instead, he would depart his Senate duties as early as possible in order to be with Niki and his three daughters. In a 1984 book called ``Heading Home,'' Mr. Tsongas wrote, ``Niki and I did not frequent the social circuit, and we knew it cost us. But the kids were more important to us than being regulars on Embassy Row or in hotel ballrooms.'' That's family values in practice. He was equally open about his fears following the cancer diagnosis: ``I felt totally alien. I was one of the select few in the United States Senate--the most exclusive club in the world. I did not want membership in a club of the afflicted.'' Mr. Tsongas learned quickly that Washington is a town that loves you only when you're ``up''; when you're down, you're out. He wrote, ``most of Washington views people through the prism of title. Did my friends like me for my office? One could never know. And this doubt always had a corrosive effect upon our feelings.'' Despite his upbeat demeanor following the cancer diagnosis (he demonstrated to the press how healthy he was by allowing cameras to show him swimming), Mr. Tsongas had been told by doctors 13 years ago that his form of cancer had never been cured and that the statistical average for life expectancy of people in similar cases was eight years. He beat the odds by five years. Sometimes we get so caught up in political and philosophical divisions that we forget not only the humanity of those with whom we disagree, but that we might actually learn something from them if we take the time to listen. ``Heading Home'' has had such a profound impact on this economic and social conservative that I have often quoted from it (most recently in an address to new members of the Congress from both parties), and my copy of the 166-page book is well-marked and dog-eared. How's this for baring your soul: ``I was no longer the senator from Massachusetts. I was a frightened human being who loved his wife and children and desperately wanted to live.'' Or this: ``In my desolation I had to reach deep into my beliefs. Those beliefs had never been sorely needed before--not like this. Now it would be different. God would be more a part of my life, no matter what happened. This was not a revelation or born-again experience. Not at all. Just a realization that while I had taken myself this far in life and done quite well, from here on I needed to recognize who was guiding me. I had to be more aware that one does not go through life without God's presence.'' To me, the most moving part of Mr. Tsongas' book appears near the end after he's given an interview to a newspaper in which he speaks often of his love for Niki and his daughters. He turns to her and says, ``You know, after 10 years in this town, all that I will be remembered for is the fact that I loved my wife.'' ``And what's wrong with that?'' Niki replied. In a time when reports of infidelity, allegations of ethical shortcomings and various scandals sweep Washington and the nation, what's wrong with that, indeed? Can anyone think of a greater legacy for his family or a better example for the rest of us? Or a better epitaph for Paul Tsongas?

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies, I am pleased to announce the subcommittee's hearing schedule for fiscal year 1998. A tentative schedule follows. The subcommittee will conduct 10 hearings beginning in late February and concluding March 20, prior to the March district work period. The subcommittee will receive testimony from Members of Congress and other public witnesses on February 25 and 26. Those parties interested in testifying before the subcommittee are directed to submit a letter of request to the subcommittee no later than February 14. Every attempt will be made to accommodate all requests. Members of Congress and other public witnesses may, without prejudice, submit their testimony for the hearing record rather than testify in person. Oral and written testimony will receive the same consideration. Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes. The subcommittee will receive testimony from only one designated spokesperson per organization, association, municipality, aviation or transit authority, or group. Witnesses testifying before the subcommittee are to provide 25 copies of their prepared testimony to the subcommittee no later than February 20, 1997. This year, an additional requirement is imposed on nongovernmental witnesses presenting oral testimony. Pursuant to clause 2(g)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Appropriations requires, to the greatest extent practicable, each nongovernmental witness who plans to give oral testimony to submit a written statement including a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source by agency and program, of any Federal grant or subgrant thereof, or contract or subcontract thereof, received during the current fiscal year or either of the two previous fiscal years by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness. Members and public witnesses who wish to submit their testimony for the hearing record are to provide three copies of their prepared testimony to the subcommittee by April 4, 1997. All Members' requests shall also be submitted by that time. Any questions can be directed to Linda Muir of the subcommittee staff at 202-225-2141. Correspondence should be addressed to: Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations, Attention: Linda Muir, 2358 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515. Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee Fiscal Year 1998 Hearing Schedule--February 23-April 5, 1997 February 25--Members of Congress and public witnesses. February 26--Members of Congress and public witnesses (9 am and 1 pm). March 4--Secretary of Transportation. March 6--U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). March 11--National Transportation Safety Board, Office of Inspector General (1 pm). March 12--Coast Guard. March 13--Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. March 18--Federal Aviation Administration. March 19--Federal Transit Administration, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). March 20--Federal Railroad Administration, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). April 4--Prepared statements for hearing record and Members' requests due (3 copies).

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize some high school students from Central High School in Woodstock, VA, in my congressional district for their outstanding sports achievement as State champions in cross country and basketball. Both the Central High School boys' cross country team and Central High School girls' basketball team won State championship victories in 1996. To have two teams from the same school obtain the title of State champions during the same year is certainly a true accomplishment. I would like to acknowledge the following team members and coaches for the dedication and hard work that brought them to victory. Members of the Central High School girls' basketball team are: Christy Burgess, Jessica Wellard, Kathy Gochenour, Stephanie Lane, Sarah Dinardo, Meghan Peer, Brandi Fleet, Sarah French, Lindsey Rutz, Jewelee Magdic, Tata Dooley, and their coach Roger Wilkins. Members of the boys' cross country team are: Tim Cline, Matt Dinardo, Tim Clugasch, Damon Harper, Kirk Kirkland, Bryce Long, Jason Long, Tony Scott, and their Coach Joseph Huddle. On behalf of the citizens of the 10th District, I salute these teams and Central High School.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this omnibus parks bill. It is good for the environment, preserves our natural, historic, and cultural resources, protects and improves our National Park System, and benefits tourism and business throughout the country. I urge its swift passage in the other body, and urge the President to sign this important legislation. We are in the final hours of the 2d session of the historic 104th Congress and still have a good deal of business to conduct. I want my colleagues to know, on both sides of the isle, that I appreciate your hard work and tireless efforts as the Nation's business comes to a close. I want to recognize the efforts of Representatives Young, Hansen, Regula, and Miller for working together on a compromise package that should be signed by the President. I also appreciate the efforts of Senators Warner and Robb and Congressman Goodlatte. Finally, I want to recognize the effort of the staff who worked on this legislation and who share our commitment to passing a meaningful parks bill this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I recall the waning hours of the 103d Congress when the so-called Vento parks package was stalled. There were many talks and negotiations in the final hours, much like the negotiations which occurred last night and today. Members of Congress and staff were running back and forth from House to House and office to office trying to find a workable compromise. We were so close, but, at about midnight on the last day of the session, the gravel dropped and Congress adjourned without passing a parks bill. That was a disappointing night. It was disappointing because all the hard work residents and leaders in the valley have put into preserving these important sites had to wait for another day. After that day, the citizens of the valley and I became even more determined to see this project through to the end. This is the culmination of years of work in the valley and it is a credit to their hard work. So here we are, in the final hours of the 104th Congress, poised to pass legislation which would create the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District. This is the culmination of 5 years of work, and it is my sincere hope that the Senate will pass this compromise in the coming days before the Congress adjourns sine die. Mr. Speaker, I introduce legislation in the beginning of the 103d Congress and 104th Congress to protect these valley battlefield sites. Senators Warner and Robb introduced companion legislation in the Senate. After working with the administration, and other Members of Congress, a compromise was fashioned which passed the House in September 18, 1995, by a vote of 377 to 31 (H.R. 1091). As the body knows, Congressmen Young and Hansen were on the floor week after week after week passing park related measures, but the other body, for one reason or another, did not pass these bills. Finally, a package was put together with over 130 parks related provisions, the conference closed, and a veto threat issued. Many thought the bill was doomed, but as I already stated, a group of members and staff stuck it out late at night to fashion a compromise. This legislation, if passed, will create the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District--a one of a kind affiliated unit of the National Park Service. This legislation forms a partnership with Federal, State, and local governments to preserve, conserve, protect, and interpret the historically significant Shenandoah Valley Civil War sites. Specifically, it will protect the two major valley campaigns--the Thomas J. ``Stonewall'' Jackson Valley campaign of 1862 and the decisive Philip Sheridan campaign of 1864--are the major Civil War battlefields not yet preserved. Mr. Speaker, I, again, would like to thank and congratulate all parties for their hard work and urge support for this legislation and its swift passage. In particular, I would like to thank, William Moschella of my staff. Without his perseverance in negotiations, skill at legislative drafting, and willingness to find solutions to new problems, we would not be here today.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, the chairman might want to go to the Senate because he filibustered this entire 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I will include my full statement in the Record. I am here to pay tribute to Jim Lightfoot. I will say a couple of things and submit the rest for the Record. Jim is an honest, decent, ethical person. We got to know each other very, very well in our Bible study. He is great storyteller. He is a good family man. I just say God bless you, we wish you well, we know you are going to be elected to the Senate, but, Jim, it is an honor and privilege to serve with you. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor this evening to honor Congressman Jim Lightfoot as he retires from the House of Representatives and embarks on a campaign to represent the entire State of Iowa in the Senate. He will be sorely missed in this body and I wish him well. Mr. Speaker, when Republicans assumed control of the 104th Congress, Jim Lightfoot was called upon to steer the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations subcommittee through its difficult work. He guided the subcommittee with humor, heart, and conviction. The Nation is safer because Representative Lightfoot stood by Federal law enforcement when they were under fire. He stood up for what was right and persevered in his convictions. I don't mean to imply that Jim was cocky or overestimated his opponents. In fact, wary of the outcome of a potentially contentious subcommittee markup, Representative Jim Lightfoot rolled up his sleeves, sharpened his pencils, and strapped on a flak jacket just to be sure. All turned out well, the bill was passed, Federal law enforcement emerged a bit stronger, and Jim was not shot at once. I was relieved because as vice chairman of the subcommittee, I had the pleasure of sitting next to him. Jim, this body will miss your humor and good will. I appreciate your working with all Members in a bipartisan manner, working with me on a variety of issues of interest to Federal employees and other issues addressed by the subcommittee. Jim and I also worked on a number of transportation issues together, and I have always been thankful that he never once asked to have a field hearing aboard his plane. The citizens of Iowa should be proud and honored by your work here. You have done your constituents proud. Good luck to you in the busy months ahead and godspeed.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 525, the following suspensions are expected to be considered on Saturday, September 28, 1996: H.R. , concerning metric conversion (identical version reintroduced); S. 1918, concerning normal trade relations; H.R. 3219, concerning native American housing; and H.R. 4088, concerning land conveyance.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this bill. Let me just talk to the Members on our side. This bill expands the essential air service that our Committee on the Budget voted to phase out. I thought we had abolished all the ice buckets on Capitol Hill. We have created a massive ice bucket with regard to this bill. We are expanding essential air service. There are so many other things, Mr. Speaker, I am just going to revise and extend. I strongly urge my colleagues on this side to vote against this bill, because when they read this bill later on next week, they will be very regretful that they voted to spend all this additional money. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could vote for the conference report to H.R. 3539, the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996. This bill funds airport improvements, air traffic control facilities and equipment, and salaries and expenses to operate the FAA. But the bill includes amendments to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Act which I find unacceptable. Colleagues who were serving in the mid-1980's may recall the legislation to turn control of the two metropolitan Washington airports--National and Dulles--from the Federal Government to a local authority. We got the Federal Government out of the airport management business and established an authority made up of a majority of local residents to run these two airports located in Virginia. And what has happened since the 1986 act establishing the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority? I believe everyone would agree that it's been a true success story. I submit here for the Record a copy of statistics on the success of the two airports. Both airports have had major renovation and expansion projects underway and are serving more passengers more efficiently than ever before in modern and safe facilities. If there has been one ongoing source of contention, though, in this almost decade-long process of having the local authority operate these airports, it has been the Congressional Board of Review which was set up in tandem with the Airports Authority as a way to keep congressional oversight and even, some would say, control over the airports. I never believed the Review Board was necessary because Congress already has a built-in mechanism for oversight and that's the committee hearing process. Court challenges also were made to the Review Board and twice the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Review Board as unconstitutional. Legislation was then introduced to try to keep Congress involved with the airports and get around the constitutional challenges. What has emerged in this Congress as provisions in the FAA conference report are changes to the make-up of the Airports Authority board of directors which I find incongruous with one of the primary changes this Congress has tried to make in the area of Federal mandates and turning back control to State and local governments of what should be State and local government decisions. This conference report mandates two additional directors to the MWAA board appointed by the President and specifically mandates that the two additional appointments ``shall be registered voters of States other than Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.'' Furthermore, provisions in the conference report for the two additional Presidentially appointed board members state that ``in carrying out their duties on the board, members of the board appointed by the President shall ensure that adequate consideration is given to the national interest.'' That is wholly unacceptable and defies what this Congress has tried to accomplish in turning back control of program and decisionmaking to the local and State levels. Another provision in his conference report is merely a job protection provision for a former employee of the Congressional Board of Review. Even though the Board of Review is terminated, this bill provides that this employee will continue to have a position with the Department of Transportation serving `'to assist the Secretary in carrying out this Act.'' Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of aviation programs but am convinced that the provisions in the conference report to H.R. 3539 relating to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority are unnecessary and regret that these provisions are included in legislation I would like to support. I thought we got rid of ice buckets. There are other bad provisions in this bill and I therefore oppose H.R. 3539. You Can Only Trade As Far As You Can Travel Prepared for the Washington Initiative's European Mission. washington enjoys excellent air service In today's global market the efficiency of a region as a business location is a function of its air service availability. The Washington region's businesses work with local governments, the airports, and the federal government to attract new air services and to represent the travelers' and the shippers' interests. As a result, Washington's air service choices have more than doubled in ten years and Washington Dulles is projected to be one of the top five international gateways to the U.S. by 2002. Washington's excellent demographics form one of the nation's largest domestic and international aviation markets. Combined with the city's strategic geographic location, this market gives Washington based companies a very wide choice of competitive services from a choice of airports, including: 238 international flights a week operated by 20 carriers, provide direct service in 32 markets principally from Washington Dulles, including nonstop service to all major European gateways and Tokyo.\1\ (Canadian services also operate from National.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Summer 1996 Schedule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- More than 600 daily domestic flights from Dulles and National serve 77 U.S. destinations nonstop and provide single plane or one stop connecting service to virtually every community in the United States receiving scheduled air service. New low-fare services saved travelers from Washington Dulles and National $97 million in 1995. In 1995, Washington Dulles was the 7th largest intercontinental gateway to the United States and ranked 4th as a transatlantic gateway behind New York's JFK, Los Angeles International and Chicago Airports. On the east coast, Dulles ranked second only to New York's JFK as a transatlantic and Asian gateway. Washington Dulles serves the 3rd largest international market in the United States. Washington Dulles is strategically located: 1. Within a two-hour flight or a day's truck journey of two-thirds of the U.S. and Canadian populations--the world's largest market. 2. On the Great Circle air routes between the Far East and South America and between Europe and Southern NAFTA. Washington Dulles and National Airports, 36 airlines provide: 1. Nonstop daily service in 77 domestic markets and one- stop service to virtually every airport served by scheduled airline service. 2. Nonstop or single-plan service in 32 international markets, including nonstop service to Tokyo and all major European gateways. Washington Dulles Airport European services include: 1. A choice of three daily nonstop services to Frankfurt with United, Lufthansa and Delta Airlines. 2. Six daily nonstop flights to London by British Airways, United Airlines, and Virgin Atlantic. 3. Daily service to Amsterdam by United and Northwest/KLM. For air cargo shipments Washington offers: 1. 141 airlines and companies providing freight forwarding, customs brokerage, trucking, warehouse and bonded space, foreign-trade zone, cold storage, and other services with reliable, 24-hour operations. 2. Modern cargo facilities and a vibrant growing cargo industry. 3. Paperless, electronic interfaces with U.S. Customs, allowing prompt service and clearance of cargo, in some instances before the plane lands. 4. Uncongested airport access through the Washington Dulles Access Road and an uncongested extensive road feeder trucking network. 5. A high standard of secure, rapid and responsive cargo services with extremely low loss and damage levels. the region's airports Washington is served by three airports which provides the traveler and shipper with an unusually side competitive choice for fares and services. American cities with only one airport which is predominantly served by one or two carriers typically have fares 18 percent higher than the national norm. Washington Dulles International and Washington National Airports are part of the National Capital Region and operated by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority--a regional self-funding government agency. Baltimore Washington International Airport is located between Washington and Baltimore and operated by the state of Maryland. BWI and Washington Dulles are located approximately 40 minutes from downtown Washington. National Airport is located on the Potomac River in the downtown area. National Airport is a physically limited facility offering a controlled number of flights to U.S. and Canadian destinations without 1,250 miles. Washington Dulles is the region's full service growth airport with a design capacity of 50 million passengers and 750,000 flights per year with 320,424 flights handled over the 12 months ending with July 1996. BWI provides a wide range of North American service, including transcontinental, Canadian and Caribbean flights, and transatlantic service principally to the U.K. and Scandinavian countries. The Smithsonian plans to open a 720,000 sq. ft. expansion of the National Air & Space Museum at Washington Dulles in 2001.