Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on the soft landing provisions of the bill. Budget reductions, reinventing government, downsizing, rightsizing, streamlining, and restructuring--whatever it's called, the result could be the same--reductions-in-force [RIF]. Many dedicated Federal employees are concerned that they will be displaced from their jobs by RIF's. As the Nation's largest employer, it is our responsibility to make sure that downsizing is conducted in the most fair, sensitive, and humane manner. These soft landing provisions will do just that. The bill before us contains many of the provisions contained in H.R. 2751, the ``Federal Employee Separation Incentive and Reemployment Act,'' which I introduced on December 7, 1995. These soft landing provisions will help the separated Federal employee make a smooth transition into the private sector. This legislation will permit employees separated in connection with a RIF to continue health and life insurance benefits for 18 months. It authorizes agencies to establish job counseling and job placement programs for current or former employees. It authorizes agencies to provide retraining and relocation assistance to employees separated in connection with a RIF who take a job with a non-Federal entity. This would also provide educational assistance to employees separated in connection with a RIF. These provisions are good for Federal employees, good for morale, good for the Federal Government and just make good sense. Mr. Speaker, this soft landing provision in this bill is very, very important. I strongly support it.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor this morning in my capacity as the chairman of the Family Quality of Life Advisory Committee to submit for the Record my assessment of the efforts during the 104th Congress to make the House more family friendly which I request be inserted in the Record. While some progress toward the goal of making the Congress more family friendly for Members, for their families, and for the staff has been made, it is probably fair to say that this body may never truly become a family friendly place to work. Still, I believe that it is important to continue the efforts. Rolled votes, firmer and more reliable legislative schedules, earlier end times on getaway days and efforts to conduct most legislative business in the Tuesday-Wednesday-Thursday window have helped some. Much more needs to be done. As I step down as chairman, I urge the leadership to continue this effort and appoint as the next chairman someone who comes from a different perspective, someone, perhaps, whose district is more remote from the Capitol who commutes home on weekends to be in the district and with his or her family, someone with younger children living at home, someone who will continue to strive for progress in this area but who sees things through different eyes. Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to share my thoughts on family friendly efforts in the House and my hopes for such efforts in the days ahead. At the conclusion of the 104th Congress, I will end my service as chairman of the Family Quality of Life Advisory Committee. It has been an honor and privilege to serve on this Committee, but it is appropriate that a new chairman be named to continue efforts in the 105th Congress. To provide long-range balance, it is my hope that the next Family Quality of Life Advisory Committee chairman brings a perspective different from my own--preferably someone with young children who lives with his or her family in the congressional district, located beyond the Washington metropolitan area. The new chairman should serve as an ombudsman for the House, push for further family friendly initiatives, and be willing to challenge the House leadership on both sides of the aisle on family friendly matters. In assessing family friendly efforts in the 104th Congress, simply put, this Congress has been extremely difficult for many Members, staff and families. Both sessions have been marked by long days and nights, contentious debate, and ambitious legislative agendas. Our efforts to enact broad reforms and sweeping initiatives have exacted a significant toll on far too many of our colleagues, staff, and on the families. I know many who have struggled greatly under the enormous burdens imposed by the House schedule. The House leadership did try to respond to the needs of Members, staff and families by adopting some reforms and improvements in the House schedule gleaned from a survey the committee conducted of Members and staff. But the House is not family friendly. The House began adhering where possible to a published schedule, starting sessions earlier in the morning, rolling votes, ending sessions earlier on get- away Fridays, and instituting a Tuesday-Thursday schedule for floor business when possible. There were good intentions at the outset and they helped. However, much more is needed. At times it seems to be an impossible task in trying to balance the needs of Members anxious to conclude legislative business at a reasonable time most days except Wednesday to allow them to be with family members in the metropolitan Washington area with the needs of Members eager to return to their more distant districts at the end of the legislative work week. But it is a challenge we must address. Some Members prefer the House to conclude legislative business earlier in the evening during the week to allow them the opportunity to have dinner with their family, attend PTA meetings, spend time with their sons or daughters, or simply relax. For these Members, the late sessions make it nearly impossible for them to go home to spend time with their families here and still attend to needs in their own districts when the House is not in session. Other Members whose families live in their districts want the House to compress its legislative sessions, maintaining a Tuesday-Thursday work schedule and working late into the evening if necessary. These Members prefer longer legislative sessions so they may spend additional time when they go back to their districts with their families and constituents. I recognize the difficulties in attempting to meet these conflicting needs, but we must make every effort to be fair and balanced and accommodate the needs of all Members as much as possible. My own personal view is that perhaps a truly family friendly Congress may not be possible. Maybe we can never balance the legislative business of the Nation against the individual, personal needs of Members, staff, and families. Still, I do know that we must continue working toward that goal. We will either get better or get worse. Things never stay the same. We must remain committed to making Congress a more family friendly place, one which enables Members to be successful Representatives as well as successful spouses, fathers and mothers. We owe this effort to ourselves, our staffs, our families, and those who would aspire to follow us to Capitol Hill. If we give up on efforts to establish a more family friendly Congress, we essentially concede that on Capitol Hill, one can only be successful in either his or her professional or personal life but not both. What kind of legislators, spouses, fathers or mothers would we then become? Truly, when our course has been run, the only place each of us will really be missed is in our family. Let's not throw in the towel on efforts to successfully meet both professional and personal needs. Success in establishing a more family friendly working environment requires a strong commitment from House leadership on both sides of the aisle. Members--especially newer Members--need to see their leaders are committed to having the House family friendly. While leadership on both sides of the aisle must lead the way in our family friendly efforts, all Members have a responsibility to further these efforts. Where possible, all Members should work to focus floor debate and not waste time, and drag out matters beyond a reasonable point to no useful end. The House, Members, and staff should not be held hostage to the whims of Members who would force everyone to stay in session late to debate issues whose outcome is a foregone conclusion. Family friendly is a responsibility not just of the leadership but of all Members. Of course, Members understand that as legislators, we are in an unpredictable business. There will be times when Congress must remain in session to debate critical issues. Crisis government should not, however, be the standard for doing business on Capitol Hill. At both political conventions this summer, both parties offered strong profamily platforms and policies. I believe it is vital that the espoused profamily views represent the true positions of the parties. It is important that the parties not only talk the profamily talk but that they also walk the profamily walk by living a relatively normal life. If we are so busy meeting the needs of the job that we neglect the needs of our families, our views become skewed. Let's not lose our focus and true commitment to family. Further reforms in House procedures and practices can help. For example, I am not convinced that the House is particularly productive or effective when it works day after day, night after night. Are we as effective as we can be when we debate critical issues late into the night, night after night. These hours are draining for all of us and tiredness increases the level of frustration, hostility and perhaps stubborness. Let me make a comment here about the staff. Just like the Members around here, the staff have families, too. They have husbands and wives and sons and daughters and moms and dads. Members need to be sensitive to the fact that the staff arrives before the House goes into session in the morning, and they continue to work after we adjourn for the day, no matter how late. If legislative business and the last vote concludes in the early evening, most Members leave. But if there are special orders into the night, the staff stays. That can make for 14-plus hour days and 2 or 3 of these days in a row takes a tremendous toll on the staff. The floor staff probably does not use the term family friendly to describe their work environment. Many Members have suggested additional changes in House practices that merit further consideration and/or adoption. Some of these changes include: Start legislative sessions earlier in the day; end legislative sessions at a reasonable hour every day while setting one day each week for a late session; conclude voting on the designated late night by 8 or 9 p.m. and only allow debate on amendments to take place past this hour. Also, roll or cluster roll call votes; approve modified closed rules to expedite debate; set time limits on debate on amendments; establish and adhere to a set schedule; adjourn before 7 p.m. at least one night a week or more frequently if the House starts work earlier. Finally, provide more time for district work; eliminate 1 minute speeches at the start of the day in which the House is expected to be in session beyond 9 p.m.; and eliminate special orders when the House session extends beyond 9 p.m. And, of course, some of these reforms may need to be set aside at the end of a session or when legislative demands dictate. But these reforms should be the rule--not the exception. And when we violate them, we should do so only for very good reasons. I hope we continue to make family friendly reforms. It will help us be better legislators, help us be better husbands or wives and better parents. While change is difficult, let's not abandon this critical effort.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, as lead sponsor of this resolution, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 515, a resolution condemning the persecution of Christians around the world. First, I want to thank Representative Bill Gilman, chairman of the House International Relations Committee and Representatives Chris Smith and Tom Lantos, chairman and ranking member respectively of the Subcommittees on International Operations and Human Rights, for their support of the resolution and their help in getting this measure through committee in such a short time. I commend the House leadership for bringing this timely resolution to the floor this week. I also want to thank Michael Horowitz of the Hudson Institute and Nina Shea of the Puebla Program of Freedom House for their leadership on this issue. Michael and Nina have worked tirelessly in the past year sensitizing the American Christian community about Christian persecution and encouraging action. I appreciate their hard work and their commitment to this compelling issue, which has been an important one for me for some time. Mr. Speaker, religious persecution did not disappear with the cold war. It is very much alive today. In many countries around the world, people of faith are forced to endure severe persecution because they choose to worship Jesus Christ or adhere to the teachings of the Buddha dharma or practice the teachings of the Baha'u'lla (as in the case of the Bahai's) or otherwise practice their faith. In Bosnia, thousands of innocent men, women and children were slaughtered simply because they were Muslim. In Russia and some of the former Soviet republics, anti- Semitism persists. This resolution focuses on persecution of Christians. First, it condemns persecution of Christians and the calls upon responsible regimes to cease such abuses. Second, it recommends that the President expand and invigorate international advocacy efforts on behalf of persecuted Christians. Third, it encourages the President to appoint a special advisor or advisory commission to recommend ways to modify U.S. policy to better address this problem. And fourth, it applauds the World Evangelical Fellowship for declaring an international day of prayer for persecuted Christians. The Senate unanimously passed a similar resolution on Tuesday, September 17. House Resolution 515 is the first resolution in recent memory to focus specifically on Christian persecution. It focuses on Christians not because persecution of Christians is any more abominable than persecution of Jews or Bahai's or Buddhists. Persecuting a person because of his or her religious affiliation or beliefs is abominable anytime it occurs and should always be condemned by the international community. This resolution focuses on persecution of Christians to bring attention to a problem that is increasing in its regularity, its ferocity and its scope. One scholar has said that in the 20th century, more Christians have been killed for being Christian than in any of the previous 19 centuries combined. We do not know the names of all today's Christian martyrs, but we do know what happens to them: Imprisonment and torture for attending Christian worship services or Bible studies; criminal prosecution, harassment and torture of believers for failing to register with government-sanctioned ``religious associations'' run by atheists who are hostile to religious practice; systematic beatings of children who attend Christian schools; unpunished looting and burning of Christian churches, businesses and homes; prosecution and sometimes extrajudicial murder for charges brought under broadly construed ``blasphemy laws''-- laws designed to punish people for saying something negative against the prophet Mohammed; imprisonment for possession of Bibles; and prosecution, torture, and murder of Christian converts. In Sudan, a country I have visited three times, women and children from Southern Sudan (who are mostly Christian or practice a traditional African religion) are literally sold into slavery. Some for as little as $15. The authoritarian Government of Sudan, while fighting for land and power, has declared a jihad against the people of the South. Reports of forced Islamization are prevalent. Human rights groups and humanitarian organizations have been reporting for several years that humanitarian assistance, including food and medicine, is often withheld from families that refuse to convert to Islam. Freedom House reports that Christian boys are sent to the front lines as cannon fodder. Entire villages have been relocated into so-called peace camps--squalid desert communities where food and water are scarce or nonexistent. U.N. Special Rapporteur Gasper Biro reported that in May 1995, soldiers in uniform executed 12 men, women, and children for refusing to convert to Islam. Christian leaders, including clergy, have been assassinated, imprisoned, tortured, and flogged for their faith. Christians in many other countries also practice their faith in danger. Earlier this year, the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Human Rights, chaired by Representative Chris Smith, held a hearing on anti-Christian persecution where witnesses testified about persecution in North Korea, Pakistan, China, Vietnam, Mexico, and other places. We have heard reports of persecution of Assyrian Christians in Turkey and evangelical Christians in the Oromo region of Ethiopia. Human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Puebla Program of Freedom House, Christian Solidarity International, Open Doors, International Christian Concern, and others continue to document case after case of Christian persecution around the world. But the best human rights reporting in the West only scratches the surface. Thousands of voiceless, nameless victims suffer alone. Families scared for their lives cannot share their pain with the world. Mr. Speaker, these kinds of abuses must not escape notice by the American people, the Congress, or the administration if we are a Nation devoted to the principles of freedom and dedicated to preservation of human rights here and abroad. We cannot ignore suffering if we are a Nation of compassion. Until recently, the American Christian community has been relatively silent on this growing problem. There are many Americans who do not know or understand the suffering which their fellow believers are forced to endure in countries that do not share our belief in liberty and the self-evident truth that all men are created equal. But the American Christian community has begun to educate itself and call for action. This Sunday, worshipers in over one hundred thousand churches around the world will be observing the International Day of Prayer for Persecuted Christians, a day for Christians to pray for the persecuted and pledge themselves to action. In January, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) issued a Statement of Conscience and Call to Action pledging to end their ``silence in the face of the suffering of all those persecuted for their religious faith'' and ``to do what is in our power to the end that the Government of the United States will take appropriate action to combat the intolerable religious persecution.'' The statement of conscience was subsequently endorsed by the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church, the Southern Baptist Convention and the Presbyterian Church, United States of America. Pope John Paul II recently sounded a call against regimes that ``practice discrimination against Jews, Christians and other religious groups'' declaring that ``this is an intolerable and unjustifiable violation not only of international law, but of the most fundamental human freedom, that of practicing one's faith openly.'' The U.S. Catholic Conference has decried the low priority religious freedom generally receives in U.S. human rights policy and commended efforts to ``give greater visibility to our government's defense of religious liberty wherever it is denied.'' Christian leaders such as Don Argue, president of the National Association of Evangelicals; Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention; Chuck Colson, resident of Prison Fellowship; Ravi Zacharias, president of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries; and a wide range of interdenominational leaders and scholars have urged greater attention to this problem. So, I urge you to support House Resolution 515. It's not about party; it's not about politics. It's about religious liberty and justice. It's about Mehdi Dibaj, martyred in Iran in 1994. It's about Bishop Su, a 64-year-old Catholic bishop imprisoned in China earlier this year, beaten with a wooden board until it broke in splinters, suspended upside down while being beaten, who has permanently lost his hearing due to repeated blows. It's about 15-year-old Salamat Masih, a young boy forced to give up his life in Pakistan after being accused of blaspheming Mohammed. And it's about To Ding Trung, a Vietnamese Christian evangelist serving time in Quang Ngai prison for ``abusing his freedom as a citizen by propagating religion illegally.'' We are a great Nation and we are compassionate people. Vote ``yes'' on House Resolution 515. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the resolution. It is not about a party, it is not about politics, it is about religious liberty and justice. It is regarding and about those who have been persecuted for their faith. This Congress, during the 1980's and 1970's, stood with those persecuted from different religious beliefs. I believe that this is one of the finest hours, that we stand for those who are being persecuted for their Christian faith, and want to again thank the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], for his efforts, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] for his efforts, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos] for his efforts, and the House leadership on both sides of the aisle for moving this important bill.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, each year the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its ladies auxiliary conduct the national voice of democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest. This past year more than 116,000 secondary school students participated in the contest competing for the 54 national scholarships totaling more than $118,000, which was distributed among the winners. The patriotic theme for this year's contest was answering America's call. I am proud to share with my colleagues the winning script of Sherri Barrier, my constituent from the 10th District of Virginia, the winner for the State of Virginia. Sherri, a junior at Luray High School, is the recipient of the $1,000 U.S.S. Battleship Maine Memorial Scholarship Award for her winning essay. The daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Ray Barrier, she plans a career as a surgeon and was sponsored in the contest by VFW Post 621 in Luray, VA. Answering America's Call Somebody, get the phone. If it's Johnny, tell him I'm not home. If it's Elena, tell her I'll call her back. It's my country? I'm washing my hair, can you take a message? It's my country? What was the message? Responsibility. That's all? Anything else? Responsibility for myself, responsibility for others, and responsibility for my country? Responsibility for myself: What does personal responsibility mean? Well, I guess one thing it could mean is to take responsibility for my values. Good values are important. My country relies on me to set standards for myself, and to uphold them. Education is a responsibility as well. I need to motivate myself to reach my maximum scholastic potential. Another is to set reachable goals that I can strive to achieve. I'm responsible for my future, and need to be all I can be. Yes, I also have to assume the task of being a leader, and not just a follower. My country depends on me to serve as a role model for others, and to possess certain leadership qualities pertinent to being a good citizen. Responsibility for others: What responsibility for others do I have? Helping to prevent violence is a definite responsibility. I'm in charge of the way I act toward others. This means I have to regulate my behavior and need to help others use anger in a positive way before restoring to violence. I also have to be sensitive to racial issues. ``All men are created equal,'' the Declaration of Independence states. It's up to me to refrain from discriminating against anyone, and to keep peace in the society. I also need to be aware of the drug problem in this country. I can dissuade friends from the use of drugs and show evident disgust with those who take drugs. I can also project a great influence on my friends. I could help them by giving good advice and by raising my standards in hope they will do the same. Responsibility for my country: What responsibilities do I have for my country? Only I can involve myself in the government. I am able to do this by voting which gives me a chance to express my opinion on candidates and issues. Responsibility lies with me to be informed about world issues affecting our government. Building a better society is up to every individual. Even though I am only one person, I can convince others to accept their responsibilities. Together, we can ensure that America has a bright future and make this country an even better place to live. Wow! I didn't realize how much responsibility America entrusts in me. Our country depends on its youth to take responsibility and answer America's call.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to present to the House this morning a conference report accompanying the bill H.R. 3675, making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies ending September 30, 1997. This conference report is the 6th of 13 appropriations bills in the House that need to be completed before the beginning of the fiscal year just 12 days from today. Let me first take a few minutes to summarize the conference report that we bring before you today. The bill appropriates $12 billion from the general fund of the treasury and $23.3 billion from the highway and aviation trust funds. The conference report is just $50 million over the House passed version of the bill which passed by an overwhelming vote of 403 to 2. A few of the high points include, Mr. Speaker, first, $18 billion for the Federal aid highway program, $450 million over the House level and $350 million over the Senate level. This level represents the highest obligation ceiling in the history of the program. Second, a total of $4.98 billion for the operation of the Federal Aviation Administration. This appropriation represents an increase of 5 percent over the 1996 appropriation and provides funds for 500 new air traffic controllers, 367 new aviation safety inspectors and other regulatory oversight personnel, and an increase of 9 percent for field maintenance of air traffic control equipment. Third, $1.46 billion for the airport improvement program, an increase of over $110 million over the budget request. Fourth, $3.5 billion for the Coast Guard with an additional $300 million provided in the defense bill. In total, resources for the operations of the Coast Guard, which does an outstanding job, will increase $41 million over the 1996 appropriation and $100 million over the President's request. Fifth, $300 million for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an increase of $20 million over the 1996 appropriations. Sixth, a total of $565 million for Amtrak, an increase of $103 million over the House-passed level. In addition, Amtrak will receive $195 million for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program, an increase of $80 million over the last year. Seventh, $2.15 billion for transit formula programs, an increase of nearly $100 million over the 1996 appropriation. In addition, the conference report includes $1.9 billion for transit discretionary programs, an increase of $235 million over the 1996 appropriation and $100 million over the budget request. Last, the conference report contains no highway demonstration projects, maintaining an important initiative this Congress began last year. This conference report places its greatest emphasis on our highest responsibility, and that is protecting and enhancing transportation safety, and it provides the resources to improve the Nation's infrastructure. The conference report was produced in full cooperation with the minority and all indications are that this bill is a bill the President will sign. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to take a minute to thank my friend, the ranking minority member of the committee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman]. Mr. Coleman has announced his retirement from the House at the end of the session. He and I have worked closely together for the last 2 years and I am sorry to see him leave. It does not mean we have always agreed on each and every issue, but I think he has always had a good sense of humor and we have had a good relationship. I wish him Godspeed and would tell him that if he does not return to his home State of Texas, we would enjoy it very much if he made his new residence in the great State of Virginia. The great State of Virginia with the Skyline Drive, the Shenandoah Valley, the Appalachian Trail, Monticello, and Mount Vernon, and places like that. And he probably knows about those places because people from Virginia went to Texas but many are returning to live in the great State of Virginia. So if he makes this his place of residence, we clearly would welcome him, and I know he is a very objective man and we would encourage him to register to vote and participate in our politics here. But I do want to say, quite seriously, that I do want to commend Mr. Coleman and wish him well. Also, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to pay tribute to the staff members. I wish to recognize and thank those staff members who supported the Members of the House in preparation and passage of the fiscal year 1997 Transportation and related agency appropriations bill, H.R. 3675: the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee's staff, John Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, and Linda Muir. We could not have done the job without them. These are four of the finest, first-class individuals, and they have done an outstanding job. They know that I appreciate, and I am sure the minority appreciates the great work they have done. The appropriations staff, John Mikel, Dennis Kedzior, Elizabeth Morra, Ken Marx, of the majority staff; and Cheryl Smith, who has done an outstanding job representing the minority's interests. I appreciate and salute her. And also the associate staff of the committee, and I will have all their names in the Record. They have done an outstanding job. We have done about as good a job as one can do, working in a bipartisan way to meet the needs of the Nation. And an indication of that is that the bill passed the House 403 to 2. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize and thank those other staff members who supported the Members of this House in the preparation and passage of the fiscal year 1997 Transportation and related agencies appropriations bill, H.R. 3675: The associate staff to the committee: Lori-Beth Feld Hua of my office, Monica Vegas Kladakis of Majority Whip DeLay's office, Connie Veillette of Mr. Regula's office, Steve Carey of Mr. Roger's office, Bill Deere of Mr. Lightfoot's office, Ray Mock and Eric Mondero of Mr. Packard's office, Todd Rich and Sean Murphy of Mr. Callahan's office, Sametta Klinetob of Mr. Dickey's office, Paul Cambon of Chairman Livingston's office, Michael Erlandson of Mr. Sabo's office, Jim Jepsen of Mr. Durbin's office, Laura McKinney of Mr. Coleman's office, Barbara Zylinski-Mizrahi of Mr. Foglietta's office, and Paul Carver of Mr. Obey's office. Mr. Speaker, I include additional information for the Record. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18SE96.000 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18SE96.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18SE96.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18SE96.003

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the conference report. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Alabama [Mr. Callahan]. (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 3675 and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 522, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3675), making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert and read a letter at the outset from Congressman Clinger and Congressman Davis. It says: ``Dear Frank, this is to respectfully request that H.R. 1855,'' which is the bill with regard to Dr. Morgan, ``be added to legislation now pending in the conference committee appointed to consider the appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation. As you know, H.R. 1855 was the subject of a hearing in the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee on August 4, 1995. Subsequently, on February 1, 1996,'' and I will insert that letter in the Record, ``a written request was made to Majority Leader Richard K. Armey that the bill be discharged from the Committee. A copy of this letter is attached for your examination, along with a copy of the bill. ``Thank you for your consideration of this request.'' Signed ``Bill Clinger, Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,'' and ``Tom Davis, Chairman, District of Columbia Subcommittee.'' Second, this Congress in the past had voted after Dr. Morgan was incarcerated in prison for over 2 years for not testifying in a case. Many people who are arrested in the District of Columbia for drug use and felonies get out faster than Dr. Morgan got out. And this Congress has been on record overwhelmingly on this case. Third, I would also say that I think, and I will submit the full statement in the Record, Members should know Dr. Morgan is extremely sick, she has had her rectum removed, she has a colostomy which is on a bag on her side. Her father died several months ago and she was not able to attend her father's funeral. Her mother is 80-some years old. Her mother is living with her in New Zealand, taking care of Dr. Morgan and also taking care of Dr. Morgan's young daughter. Dr. Morgan's young daughter desperately wants to return to the United States. This court has had the case for 9 years. Nine years. Last, Dr. Morgan is very sick, and I would ask any Member of this body who has either been sick or has a husband or a wife or a son or a daughter, whether or not they would not have wanted them to have the very best health treatment they possibly could, and I know from this body, made up of good and decent people, the answer would be ``yes.'' And Dr. Morgan would like to be able to return, so she could have first-class health treatment. On January 25 of this year, at a press conference, attended by the gentleman from Virginia, Tom Davis, and the gentlewoman from Maryland, Connie Morella, I promised that if the legislation I cosponsored allowing Ellen to return to America had not been signed into law at this time, I would include it in the fiscal year 1997 Department of Transportation appropriations bill. I said, and I quote: I am here to tell you that it is my intention to search for an appropriate vehicle for this legislation and I won't rest until it is passed. I will even attach this legislation to our fiscal year 1997 transportation appropriations bill as a last resort. I did what I promised to do. The legislation passes no judgment on any of the parties involved. It does not take sides. It does not say anyone is right or anyone is wrong. I was not elected to Congress to harm people. I was elected to Congress to help people, and I have done what I believe is right. It is unconscionable to me that an American girl has been forced to live in exile away from her family and friends, where the courts have failed for 9 years to find a solution to this situation. Quite frankly, they have failed miserably. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Washington, DC, July 24, 1996. Hon. Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Frank: This is to respectfully request that H.R. 1855 be added to legislation now pending in the conference committee appointed to consider the Appropriations Bill for the Department of Transportation. As you know, H.R. 1855 was the subject of a hearing in the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee on August 4, 1995. Subsequently, on February 1, 1996 a written request was made to Majority Leader Richard K. Armey that the bill be discharged from the Committee. A copy of this letter is attached for your examination, along with a copy of the bill. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, William F. Clinger, Jr., Chairman, Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Tom Davis, Chairman, District of Columbia Subcommittee.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise in support of legislation to authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to construct the National Air and Space Museum extension at Washington Dulles International Airport, and I want to thank all those members and individuals who have been so helpful in moving this legislation to the House floor. I especially want to thank Chairman Shuster of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for his help. S. 1995, introduced in the Senate by my Virginia colleague Senator John Warner, authorizes the Smithsonian to build a much-needed extension of the Air and Space Museum. The existing Air and Space Museum on the Mall is simply too small and inadequate to meet existing needs. Currently there is no storage space for large artifacts, making the safe preservation of these large artifacts quite impracticable. Furthermore, due to current space limitations at the Mall museum, only about 20 percent of the Nation's air and space collection is on public display. Clearly, the extension of the Air and Space Museum at Washington Dulles International Airport will help to correct this problem. It will allow the Smithsonian to place on display historic and magnificent artifacts such as the Enola Gay, the SR-7 Blackbird spy plane, the space shuttle Enterprise, and many others. These planes and spaceships currently sit in warehouses away from public view and are improperly maintained because there is no room for these large artifacts at the Mall museum. This deprives the public of the opportunity to experience some of the most fascinating testaments to our Nation's creative genius in civil, military, and space flight. The Air and Space extension will provide the space and facilities needed to display these artifacts and allow them to be enjoyed by people from all around the world. The Air and Space Museum is the most popular of the Smithsonian's museums and the extension is expected to draw over 3 million visitors per year. In 1993 the Smithsonian Institution was first authorized to plan and design an Air and Space Museum extension at Washington Dulles International Airport and I was pleased to support this effort. In fiscal year 1996, Congress and the Commonwealth of Virginia in partnership provided funding for planning and design work on the extension. It is important to note that Congress has made it clear that no Federal funds are to be made available for the construction portion of the project. Instead, the Smithsonian Institution is responsible for raising private funds for the construction of the extension. S. 1995 furthers the efforts already underway by authorizing the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to construct the museum extension while also making clear that no appropriated funds are to be used to pay any expense of the construction of this facility. Retired Adm. Donald Engen is the new director of the Air and Space Museum and I am pleased that the museum is headed by such an enthusiastic and able director. Admiral Engen has stated that his No. 1 priority is to wage a national campaign to raise adequate funding for construction and this goal will be accomplished more effectively once Congress has clearly authorized this construction. Mr. Speaker, the museum extension will significantly increase the amount of our air and space collection on public display, provide safe and climate-controlled storage facilities, and establish a restoration facility capable of handling the largest artifacts in the collection in full view of visitors. All of this will be accomplished with no Federal funds being used for the construction of the extension. I urge passage of S. 1995 and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, there is much in this bill that is very good. I want to put this at the outset of the statement. There are two issues that I have concerns about, one the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] just raised, and that is the first provision, section 411, which states that even if the Committee on Appropriations denies funding for a runway at an international airport the Secretary of Transportation may obligate funds for such projects anyway. Essentially, this language says that despite what the Committee on Appropriations does, it can go ahead. I was pleased to hear the gentleman's comments. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee report accompanying H.R. 3539 indicates that the intent of this language was to ensure funding for a sixth runway at the Denver International Airport. However, this project has been specifically denied by Congress in the appropriations process for the past 3 years. Not only has the funding been denied for 3 years, no funds are provided once again in this year's appropriations bill, considered by the House only a few short weeks ago, and no amendment to that provision was offered when the bill was debated on the House floor. That appropriations bill--with no amendments offered dealing with this issue--was passed by an overwhelming vote of 403 to 2. The rules of the House and parliamentary precedents make clear that it is the prerogative of the Appropriations Committee to provide resources for, or make valid limitations on, the financial obligations of the Federal Government. In an unusual and clever way, section 411 of this bill takes away the unambiguous rights of the Appropriations Committee and allows the executive branch to spend funds for a project even if they have been specifically denied by the Congress. In essence, this is a reverse line item veto--it allows funds to be spent even after Congress denies them. This Congress has an excellent record of reducing the deficit and forcing the hard cuts in an oversized Government. It makes no sense to set a new precedent allowing the executive branch to undermine the prerogatives of the Appropriations Committee and the Congress, by authorizing it to spend funds for a project Congress has repeatedly denied. And this is no ordinary airport project. The access road to the Denver Airport is called Pena Boulevard--so named after the current Secretary of Transportation and former mayor of Denver and the very individual to whom the bill gives sole power to fund the project over Congress' objections. This airport receives more funding under its letter of intent with the Federal Aviation Administration than any other airport in the country, and I question whether the Department of Transportation can truly be impartial in evaluating further grant applications, given the current Secretary's prior involvement in the Denver Airport project. The Colorado congressional delegation is divided over the need for the sixth runway, and the airport has a history of management problems including illegal diversion of airport revenues. Simply stated, Denver has not proven the case for a new runway. Management problems continue, including diversion of airport revenues, shoddy construction of the existing runways and buildings; and significant airport noise issues. There is no compelling air traffic problem at the airport justifying a new runway at this time. Even the airport director stated last year that the proposed runway would provide ``marketing and business opportunities for companies throughout the region that would not otherwise exist.'' This is not ample justification for Federal investment, when resources are scarce and significant airport capacity issues exist in other cities around the country, and when decisions are necessary to curb the Federal deficit. In addition, not only would this provision grant the Secretary of Transportation authority to override congressional mandates regarding the Denver International Airport, the bill as reported would allow the Secretary to approve funding for any international runway where funding was expressly denied by the Congress. There are other runway projects in this country which are highly controversial and Congress should not cede control over these projects to the Secretary of Transportation. Section 411 is extremely controversial, unnecessary, would establish an alarming precedent, and should not be included in this legislation. The second provision of concern to me is section 416, which prohibits the Federal Aviation Administration from installing a terminal Doppler weather radar at the Brooklyn Coast Guard Air Station in New York and requires a study of the feasibility of siting such equipment from an offshore platform. While politically attractive perhaps, the offshore concept appears to be unworkable and unrealistic from an engineering and cost-benefit standpoint. In fact, after years of analysis, the FAA concluded that the Coast Guard air station in Brooklyn is the best site for this safety radar, which is badly needed in the New York metropolitan area. Furthermore, section 416 violates congressional direction contained in the statement of the managers on the fiscal year 1996 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, which directed the FAA to provide enhanced wind shear detection capability for the New York metropolitan area as soon as possible. More than a year later, this critical safety improvement still does not exist for the New York City area and the language in H.R. 3539 would lead to additional delays. There is an unquestioned need for this safety radar system in New York and calling for another study will not only be unproductive, but would pose unnecessary delays in getting essential safety equipment in place. The longer we wait, the greater the risk of an accident. The lack of Doppler weather radar was cited by the National Transportation Safety Board as one factor in the aviation accident near Charlotte, NC, just 2 years ago. On July 2, 1994, a DC-9 operating as USAir flight 1016 flew into terrain, colliding with trees and a private residence during a missed approach to the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport. The captain, first officer, one flight attendant, and one passenger received minor injuries. The remaining 37 passengers died. The airplane itself was destroyed by impact forces and a postcrash fire. What was the cause of the crash? According to the NTSB, a critical factor was the lack of real-time adverse weather and windshear hazard information which Doppler weather radar would have provided. Had the Doppler weather radar been in place, it is possible that this tragedy could have been avoided. We cannot allow the delays that plagued Charlotte to similarly plague New York. We simply cannot and should not run the risk of a similar accident in New York City. If recent events have shown us anything, they have clearly demonstrated the need for increased emphasis on aviation safety and placing the highest priority on funding for aviation safety equipment. This provision would undermine aviation safety--for nearby residents in New York and for the millions who use the New York airports. Madam Speaker, in July the House gave overwhelming approval to the fiscal year 1997 transportation appropriations legislation which places paramount importance on safety. Maintaining and improving aviation safety was the No. 1 priority in the appropriations legislation. In fact, we added some $139 million not included in the President's budget request for new air traffic control equipment and systems to improve safety and airway capacity. Final approval of the fiscal year 1997 transportation appropriations bill is expected shortly and safety will continue to be the hallmark of that legislation. I am a strong supporter of aviation programs but am convinced that the two provisions in H.R. 3539 that I just outlined pose serious problems. I regret that these provisions are included in legislation I would like to support. However, I believe these provisions are inconsistent with congressional efforts to improve aviation safety. I cannot ignore the deleterious and dangerous effects of these provisions and regretfully oppose H.R. 3539.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in support of our colleague, Representative Jim Bunning, who was recently inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY. Jim has earned the respect and admiration of many across the country through his hard work and dedication to excellence. These trials have not only helped Jim during his tenure in the House, but throughout his long and distinguished major league baseball career. In the House, Jim has been a leader in preserving Social Security, and his fair-minded style as chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee has earned him deserved praise from both sides of the aisle. His determination and diligence is admired by all. Of course, his legacy to the sport of baseball is well know. As a pitcher with the Philadelphia Phillies, he was a fan favorite. The Phillies recently celebrated his accomplishments with a Jim Bunning Day at Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia. Jim won 224 games throughout his big league career and tossed two nohitters as well. He has never backed down from a challenge, whether from an opposing hitter or an opponent in Congress, and I know we are all proud of Jim upon his induction to the hall of fame. I wanted to submit for the Record a copy of an outstanding editorial which recently appeared in the Winchester (Virginia) Star in my congressional district. This editorial, written by Adrian O'Connor, does a wonderful job of summing up how much Jim Bunning has meant to the game of baseball and, more importantly, to our great Nation. A Pitcher Speaks, Bunning Expounds on Baseball, and Life Cooperstown, NY.--He is, frankly, of another time, when Jesuits were Jesuits and still Soldiers of Jesus, and major league ball players were grown men still enthralled with a little boy's game. But, much like another Republican of some renown, Patrick J. Buchanan, Jim Bunning refuses to merely wax nostalgic about the past, his Age of Innocence; he years to re-create it on a modern stage. Which, in our mind, especially with regard to baseball, would not be all that bad a thing. In a riveting, albeit lengthy, speech upon his induction here Sunday to baseball's Hall of Fame, Mr. Bunning, the flinty hurler turned politician, leveled his rhetorical sights on all hands involved in what he deems the shameful sullying of our National Pastime. To quote John Adams from the hit musical ``1776,'' he ``has such a desire to knock heads together.'' And for good reason. In his view, both owners and players are doing their darndest to destroy a timeless game. Thus, to the owners, Mr. Bunning said, ``Get your house in order. Figure out how you want to share your revenue without going to the players and asking them to foot the bill.'' To the players, he added, ``Look beyond your contractual obligations. Conduct yourselves as gentlemen. No one player is bigger than the game. Treat the fans with dignity and respect.'' And, finally, to both the owners and players, he stated, ``Get a commissioner, a real commissioner with restored powers of the commissioner's office prior to 1950 . . . For over four years, baseball has been rudderless. For God's sake, and for the game's sake, find a rudder.'' Fans and media alike here last weekend could be forgiven for assuming that Mr. Bunning would not object if he were suddenly cast in the role of ``rudder.'' After all, he has witnessed the game from a variety of perspectives--as hard- nosed Hall of Fame Pitcher, as player representative for a dozen years, and, after his retirement, as a player agent. However, he maintains he has no desire to play powerless wet nurse to the owners, to ``28 bosses with such egos.'' However, if the hue and cry became such, as it did in 1920 when Kenesaw Mountain Landis was extended the task of cleaning up the game, that the office of commissioner was reconstituted (with teeth), then who knows? Perhaps Jim Bunning might be interested. Until then, he can serve as an advocate for the game--and, by example, for a way of life lost in the modern shuffle. Educated by Jesuits in the pre-Vatican II days, Mr. Bunning, the father of nine, is unabashedly Catholic and conservative, and unabashedly blunt about his beliefs. He is, he says, a product of his father's public-spiritedness--`` `Get involved,' he always told me''--the uncompromising moral approach of the Jesuits, and his wife Mary's prayers and dedication to the homeplace. But yet, the Kentucky congressman is also a product of that little boy's game he played so superbly. ``My life in baseball prepared me well,'' he told the Induction Day crowd. ``I learned that if you set goals high enough, keep trying to achieve them, and work hard, you can do anything you want to do . . . You can overcome your shortcomings with hard work and perseverance.'' Advice tendered in Cooperstown, yet well worth hearing in most every city and town the nation over.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3675) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments, thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and accept the motion.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about a statement President Clinton made yesterday that he would not support legislation which would reimburse Billy Dale and the other White House travel office employees' legal bills. His statement is contrary to other White House statements, and I urge him to reconsider this position. Without rehashing the developing Travelgate saga, Members will recall that Billy Dale and six other White House travel employees, all career employees, one a constituent of mine, were fired so that the President's cousin could take over the operation. Those career Federal employees had their good names and their reputations destroyed. One of those employees was charged and the other six were not charged. One was forced to fight the full investigative and prosecuting power of the Federal Government, and was finally acquitted of any wrongdoing by a jury of his peers. Billy Dale and his colleagues racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees. According to news stories, the President snapped at a reporter who asked a question about the legal fees, because the President is concerned about his own staff's mounting legal bills. Unlike those others who hold high political offices, however, the fired travel office employees are not able to hold glitzy Hollywood fund- raisers and have the beautiful people donate $1,000 to their legal fees. Again, my constituent was never charged with anything. So I call on the President to make sure that this is signed. The Golden Rule says, do onto others as you would have them do onto you. The President ought to be sure, because of the actions of the White House, these people have been hurt, that they are reimbursed. It is the fair thing to do. It is the right thing to do. I said on this floor one other time, when talking about this case, everything that goes around comes back around. One could almost say, the administration's action with regard to these Federal employees began all of the White House's legal problems. History will judge whether this is right or not, but regardless, career Federal employees should not be punished for a political action taken by any administration, Republican or Democrat. warning against potential politicizing of the fbi Mr. Speaker, I also want to express concern for the potential politicizing of the FBI. I will be inserting two articles in the Record whereby it talks about how Mr. Shapiro, who is the general counsel of the FBI, has been doing and involved in activities that the general counsel of the FBI ought not be involved in. I have been one of the strongest supporters of the FBI and the employees of the FBI in this body. Many of the FBI agents live in my district, and I have been supportive with regard to the benefits and pay raises and other things. But it is chilling, it is chilling when the general counsel of the FBI, Mr. Shapiro, does what he did. The one FBI agent, Dennis Calabrini, who is also a constituent of mine, he sent two FBI agents out to interview him at his home; very, very chilling. Then he made the data with regard to the Livingstone data available to parties that should not have seen it. This is a conflict of interest. This is inappropriate. Mr. Speaker, the FBI should be above and beyond all partisan politics. Under no circumstances should any high officials in the FBI use FBI agents to encourage or be involved in anything that could even smack of political partisanship. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following article. The article referred to is as follows: [From the Washington Post, Aug. 2, 1996] Many Notified After FBI `Heads-Up' (By George Lardner Jr.) The White House sent out what amounted to ``an all-points bulletin'' warning at least 16 people, including lawyers for embattled former White House personnel security chief Craig Livingstone, after the FBI alerted it to politically damaging information in Livingstone's FBI file, House Republicans complained yesterday. ``Those who needed to do damage control were notified first. Those who were investigating were notified last,'' Rep. William F. Clinger Jr. (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, said at the windup of a six-hour hearing. He said FBI general counsel Howard Shapiro, who alerted the White House July 15 to the file's contents, should consider resigning. FBI Director Louis J. Freeh said last night that Shapiro ``enjoys my full confidence.'' Democrats dismissed the disclosures as a sideshow ginned up after Republicans failed to document their original suspicions: that Livingstone's office had been seeking dirt on political enemies when it wrongly collected confidential FBI reports on hundreds of Republicans from the Bush and Reagan administrations. ``The committee has come to the end of the road and is now looking for new allegations to embarrass the Clinton White House,'' said Rep. Cardiss Collins (D-Ill.), the panel's ranking minority member. Shapiro, the hearing's main witness, acknowledged making ``a horrific blunder'' in telling the White House of an FBI report that Livingstone had been ``highly recommended'' for his job by first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. A protege of Freeh, Shapiro gave White House deputy counsel Kathleen Wallman the ``heads-up'' shortly before Clinger's chief investigator was scheduled to inspect the material. He said he had only been trying to be fair and emphasized that the decision was his alone. Asked what Freeh thought, Shapiro said: ``He wishes I hadn't done it.'' ``So do we,'' Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) said. ``So do I,'' Shapiro said. Committee Republicans accused Shapiro of being ``too cozy'' with the White House on other occasions as well. Last February, he said, he gave White House counsel Jack Quinn a draft copy of the book ``Unlimited Access,'' by Gary Aldrich, a former FBI agent who had been assigned to the Clinton White House. Laced with allegations that have been widely discredited, it depicted Hillary Clinton as a driving force at the White House, usurping control of domestic policy and hiring decisions. Shapiro said he gave Quinn the draft, four months before publication, because it was ``replete with sensitive internal information'' and because he suspected it would be published, as it was, without the requisite FBI pre-publication clearance. He said Aldrich made some changes the FBI wanted, but there were objections to ``six somewhat lengthy passages'' that were still in the book when it was published last month. The FBI has recommended that the Justice Department file a civil suit against Aldrich to make him turn over his profits to the government. ``It's the only recourse we have,'' Shapiro said. Shapiro, 36, also came under attack for giving Quinn advice about a July 25 letter he sent to Freeh. Shapiro told Quinn that one reference to the possibility that an FBI agent had ``falsified'' a report would be offensive. The section was an allusion to FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene, who conducted the 1993 background investigation on Livingstone. In an interview report discovered in Livingstone's file, Sculimbrene quoted then-White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum as saying Livingstone owed his job to the first lady. Among those notified after Shapiro's call to the White House about the item were Hillary Clinton, her chief of staff and communications director, two lawyers for Nussbaum, deputy White House chief of staff Harold Ickes, senior policy adviser George Stephanopoulos and spokesman mark Fabini. ``We behaved appropriately,'' Fabiani said. When Clinger made Sculimbrene's account public, ``we were able to respond quickly.'' Nussaum denied making the remarks attributed to him. Hillary Clinton said she had nothing to do with Livingstone's appointment. By July 16, when Clinger's investigator went to inspect the interview report, Shapiro and his top deputy, Thomas A. Kelly, had dispatched two agents to Sculimbrene's home to question him about the Nussbaum interview. Sculimbrene has decided to resign from the FBI, sources said yesterday. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston (R- La.), who had been watching the hearing on C-SPAN, charged that the agents' visit was ``absolutely intended to intimidate'' Sculimbrene and ``constitutes, in my view, obstruction of justice,'' He told reporters that Shapiro ``should immediately resign'' and the Justice Department should begin an investigation ``to determine whether a criminal charge can be brought.'' In his statement last night, Freeh said he was ``satisfied that none of Howard's actions were done in bad faith or for partisan purposes. . . . Howard has been instrumental in every major investigation and issue handled by the FBI over the last three years.'' [From the Washington Post, Aug. 2, 1996] Clinton Loses Composure on Travel Office (By Adam Nagourney) Washington, Aug. 1--His eyes narrowed in anger, President Clinton today punctured what was supposed to be a Rose Garden ceremony celebrating good economic news by heatedly renouncing a White House promise to pay the legal bills of travel office employees who had been dismissed. ``Are we going to pay the legal expenses of every person in America who is ever acquitted of an offense?'' Mr. Clinton said, his voice even and steely as he plunged his hands into his pockets, rejecting a suggestion that he urge the Senate to proceed on stalled legislation that would reimburse the employees. When a reporter reminded him that his own press secretary had previously pledged Mr. Clinton's support to the Senate legislation, Mr. Clinton shook him off: ``Well, he didn't talk to me before he said that,'' Mr. Clinton said. ``I didn't say that. I said, `I don't know what's going to be in it.' '' At that, Mr. Clinton turned to his questioner, a Washington Times reporter, and said: ``I don't believe that we should give special preference to one group of people over others. Do you? Do you? Mr. Clinton is renowned among staff members for his fast and frequent outbursts of anger, and, typically, equally fast cooling downs and apologies. In this case, Mr. Clinton later called aside one of his targets, Bill Plante, a CBS White House correspondent who asked the initial question that The Washington Times reporter followed up, and apologized. Mr. Plante said the President attributed his fit of temper to fatigue and the stress he was feeling because of the destruction of T.W.A. Flight 800. Still, the exchange came over an issue that has caused Mr. Clinton much difficulty in the past two years, the dismissal of seven employees of the White House travel office by Mr. Clinton's Administration shortly after he took office. The Washington Times has closely followed the situation involving Billy R. Dale, the director of the White House travel office, who was dismissed and then acquitted of embezzlement charges brought against him by Mr. Clinton's Justice Department. The reporter who asked the question today, Paul Bedard, said this afternoon that Mr. Clinton had not offered him an apology. Within hours of the televised news conference, aides to Mr. Clinton's likely opponent this fall, Bob Dole, who have customarily had to deal with questions about Mr. Dole's temperament, pounced on this incident to raise questions about the temper of the man in the White House. ``We have to assume that in anticipation of Dole's pro- growth economic plan coming out next week, Clinton is coming unglued,'' said John Buckley, Mr. Dole's communications director, referring to Mr. Dole's pending release of an economic plan that has caught White House attention over the past few days. ``But there is the larger issue of the President's ability to control his temper in public. And they're going to have to monitor that very carefully at the White House.'' Mr. Dole's aides asserted that Mr. Clinton's exchange in the Rose Garden was the public relations equivalent of Mr. Dole's televised confrontation with Katie Couric, the host of the NBC News ``Today'' program, over Mr. Dole's ties to the tobacco industry. ``On the Katie Couric interview, Dole was asked several questions on the same subject and he showed a glint of testiness,'' Mr. Buckley said. ``But there's a far cry between that and the leader of the free world having a meltdown at a news conference.'' George Stephanopoulos, a senior adviser to Mr. Clinton, said in response to Mr. Buckley: ``Valiant spin. What else do you expect him to say in the face of historic economic growth?'' I think there is a real question as to the propriety that Mr. Shapiro has taken. I for one will wait and see what will be done with regard to that. Because we cannot have a situation whereby the general counsel of an agency that has such a long and distinguished record does something like this that can bring blemish and concern with regard to the objectivity in the minds of the American people.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, in many countries of the world today, Christians live in fear. Fear for their lives and fear for their livelihood. Worldwide persecution and martyrdom of Christians has increased and intensified to such an extent that more Christians have died for their faith in the 20th century than in all prior 19 centuries combined. In some parts of the world, Christians are forbidden to practice their faith and are victimized by religious apartheid which subjects them to discrimination as well as inhumane and humiliating treatment. In several Islamic countries, converting to Christianity from Islam is punishable by death. In many countries today, Christians are imprisoned, enslaved, tortured, and killed simply because of their faith. The Government of Sudan is waging a jihad against the Christian southern part of the country, enforcing Sharia'--Islamic law--against non-Muslim African Sudanese--torturing, starving, killing, and displacing over 1 million people and enslaving tens of thousands of its women and children. Today in Sudan, a human being can be bought for as little as $15. Christians in China have experienced the worst persecution since the pre-Deng period in the 1970's. There are more documented cases of Christians in prison or in some form of detention in China than in any other country. Both Evangelical Protestant house church groups and Roman Catholics have been targeted and named ``a principal threat to political stability'' by the Central Committee of China's Communist Party. In recent months, in three separate incidents, three Chinese Christian leaders were beaten to death by Chinese authorities simply because of their religious activities. In Pakistan last year, a 13-year-old boy was forced to flee the country after he was convicted under Pakistan's blasphemy law. His uncle, who was also convicted, was shot dead by someone in the angry mob that swarmed outside the courtroom. In 1994, three Christians in Iran were kidnaped and murdered during 1994 as part of a crackdown on the Iranian Christian community. In Vietnam and other countries, Catholic bishops and priests and Protestant pastors are routinely imprisoned, Bibles are confiscated and churches are raided. There is also severe persecution of Christians in North Korea, Cuba, and some countries in the Middle East. Leaders of the international Christian community have begun to speak out about this serious and growing problem. Pope John Paul II recently sounded a call against regimes that ``practice discrimination against Jews, Christians, and other religious groups, going even so far as to refuse the right to meet in private for prayer,'' declaring that ``this is an intolerable and unjustifiable violation not only of all the norms of current international law, but of the most fundamental human freedom, that of practicing one's faith openly.'' The National Association of Evangelicals in January 1996 issued a ``Statement of Conscience and Call to Action'' subsequently endorsed by the Southern Baptist Convention, the executive council of the Episcopal Church, and the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church, United States of America. It pledged to ``do what is in our power to the end that the Government of the United States will take appropriate action to combat the intolerable religious persecution now victimizing fellow believers and those of other faiths.'' The World Evangelical Fellowship has declared September 29, 1996, and each annual last Sunday in September, as an international day of prayer on behalf of persecuted Christians. That day will be observed by numerous churches and human rights groups around the world. Mr. Speaker, its time for Congress to speak out. I am introducing a resolution that would condemn the human rights abuses and denials of religious liberty to Christians around the world; strongly recommend that the President expand and reinvigorate United States international advocacy on behalf of persecuted Christians; encourage a reexamination of all U.S. policies that affect persecuted Christians; encourage the President to appoint a White House special adviser on religious persecution; and applauds the actions of the World Evangelical Fellowship in designating an annual day of prayer on behalf of persecuted Christians. The United States has forcefully taken up the cause of other persecuted religious minorities. During the cold war, we repeatedly passed resolutions condemning the persecution of the Soviet Jews. In recent years, we have passed resolutions condemning the persecution of people of the Baha'i faith. We have the ability to intervene in a similar manner for persecuted Christians. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important resolution. H. Res. -- Whereas the worldwide persecution and martyrdom of Christians has increased and intensified to such an extent that more Christians have died for their faith in the 20th century than in all prior 19 centuries combined; Whereas in many places throughout the world, Christians are restricted in or forbidden from practicing their faith, victimized by a ``religious apartheid'' that subjects them to inhumane, humiliating treatment, and are imprisoned, tortured, enslaved, and killed; Whereas in some countries proselytism is forbidden, and extremist elements persist unchecked by the government in their campaigns to eradicate Christians and force conversions through intimidation, rape, and forced marriage; Whereas in several Islamic countries conversion to Christianity from Islam is a crime punishable by death; Whereas the militant Muslim Government of Sudan is waging a jihad (religious war) against the Christian southern part of the country, enforcing Shari'a (Islamic law) against non- Muslim African Sudanese, torturing, starving, killing, and displacing over 1,000,000 people, and enslaving tens of thousands of women and children. Today in Sudan, a human being can be bought for as little as $15; Whereas Christians in China have experienced the worst persecution since the pre-Deng period in the 1970s. There are more documented cases of Christians in prison or in some form of detention in China than in any other country. Both Evangelical Protestant house church groups and Roman Catholics have been targeted and named ``a principal threat to political stability'' by the Central Committee of China's Communist party. In recent months, in separate incidents 3 Chinese Christian leaders were beaten to death by Chinese authorities simply for their religious activities; Whereas an Islamic court in Kuwait has denied religious liberty to a convert from Islam to Christianity, and the judge recommended that he be put to death; Whereas 3 Christian leaders in Iran were kidnapped and murdered during 1994 as part of a crackdown on the Iranian Christian community; Whereas severe persecution of Christians is also occurring in North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and certain countries in the Middle East, to name merely a few; Whereas religious liberty is a universal right explicitly recognized in numerous international agreements, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Whereas Pope John Paul II recently sounded a call against regimes that ``practice discrimination against Jews, Christians, and other religious groups, going even so far as to refuse them the right to meet in private for prayer,'' declaring that ``this is an intolerable and unjustifiable violation not only of all the norms of current international law, but of the most fundamental human freedom, that of practicing one's faith openly,'' stating that this is for human beings ``their reason for living''; Whereas the National Association of Evangelicals in January 1996 issued a ``Statement of Conscience and Call to Action,'' subsequently commended or endorsed by the Southern Baptist Convention, the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church, and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, United States of America. They pledged to end their ``silence in the face of the suffering of all those persecuted for their religious faith'' and ``to do what is in our power to the end that the Government of the United States will take appropriate action to combat the intolerable religious persecution now victimizing fellow believers and those of other faiths''; Whereas the World Evangelical Fellowship has declared September 29, 1996, and each annual last Sunday in September, as an international day of prayer on behalf of persecuted Christians. That day will be observed by numerous churches and human rights groups around the world; Whereas the United States of America since its founding has been a harbor of refuge and freedom to worship for believers from John Winthrop to Roger Williams to William Penn, and a haven for the oppressed, and has guaranteed freedom of worship in this country for people of all faiths; Whereas, unfortunately, the United States has in many instances failed to raise forcefully the issue of anti- Christian and other religious persecution and international conventions and in bilateral relations with offending countries; and Whereas, however, in the past the United States has forcefully taken up the cause of other persecuted religious minorities, and the United States has the ability to intervene in a similar manner for persecuted Christians throughout the world: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) unequivocally condemns the egregious human rights abuses and denials of religious liberty to Christians around the world, and calls upon the responsible regimes to cease such abuses; (2) strongly recommends that the President expand and invigorate United States international advocacy on behalf of persecuted Christians, and initiate a thorough examination of all United States policies that affect persecuted Christians; (3) encourages the President to proceed as expeditiously as possible in appointing a White House special advisor on religious persecution; and (4) applauds the actions of the World Evangelical Fellowship in declaring an annual international day of prayer on behalf of persecuted Christians.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman would just yield for a second, just so I can make it on the record. I am not involving myself in West Virginia, as you know, but I am concerned about the statements that the West Virginia Highway Department is now saying we are going to bring it up to the edge and dump it into Virginia; that will show the people in Virginia. I would ask the gentleman to look into that.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, you mentioned the Virginia line, that it runs to my district, and I had expressed concern. I keep hearing the West Virginia officials talking about dumping traffic in my area. We have decided in Virginia we do not want corridor H. I would ask the gentleman to deal with the West Virginia highway officials to resolve this matter, because if this matter is not resolved, I may very well come out and do everything in my power to kill corridor H from the Virginia line clear on into West Virginia.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to bring the accomplishments of Dr. George W. Johnson, former president of George Mason University, to the attention of the House. After 18 years as GMU's fifth president, Dr. Johnson retired 1 month ago today. During Dr. Johnson's tenure as president, the university saw unprecedented growth and earned the respect of the Northern Virginia community in addition to national business and educational leaders. Named after the Father of the Bill of Rights and one of Virginia's delegates to our Nation's Constitutional Convention, George Mason University was founded in 1972 as the Commonwealth of Virginia's public 4-year university in Northern Virginia. At the risk of excluding important events at GMU during the past 18 years, I would like to point out a few highlights in which Dr. Johnson should take great pride. They include the addition of campuses in Arlington and Prince William counties and the opening of the George Mason University School of Law which was named as the ``Top Up and Coming'' law school in the Nation by U.S. News & World Report. Dr. James Buchanan, professor of economics, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1986 for his work in public choice economics. In addition, enrollment at GMU has more than doubled to over 24,000 in the past two decades. Datamation, a management magazine for computing professionals, recently cited George Mason's partnerships with Northern Virginia business among the Nation's best with Carnegie Mellon, Stanford University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business. Rarely before has an educational institution forged a stronger relationship with businesses in the community. Together, George Mason and the high technology businesses of the region have constructed a world class educational and professional partnership. Evidence of Dr. Johnson's appreciation for diversity is the completion of a spectacular concert hall and fine arts center a stone's throw from George Mason's 10,000 seat Patriot Center where Washingtonians visit to attend concerts, sporting events, and shows. Co-located on the campus is the athletic field house which plays host to one of the world's annual premiere track and field events--the Mobil 1 track meet. Over the past several years, the world's best track and field athletes have come to Mason and set world records. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the accomplishments of Dr. Johnson, his wife Joanne's remarkable contribution to the arts and the Northern Virginia community should not be overlooked. Joanne Johnson has been active in organizations such as the Hospice of Northern Virginia, Woodlawn Plantation Council, Partners for Livable Communities, and the Learning in Retirement Institute. Together, Mr. Speaker, George and Joanne Johnson have left a legacy of dedication and commitment to education in our community for which Virginians will be forever grateful.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce legislation-- along with my colleagues Representatives Bob Livingston, Sam Johnson, Tom Davis, Tom Bliley, Bob Goodlatte, Jim Moran, L.F. Payne, Rick Boucher, Owen Pickett, and Norman Sisisky--to authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to construct the National Air and Space Museum Extension at Washington Dulles International Airport. This legislation represents the next critical step in making the extension a reality and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. The need for this extension is clear. The existing Air and Space Museum on the Mall now faces a critical shortage of critical storage facilities. Current facilities are inadequate, storage for larger artifacts is simply not available, and existing storage facilities do not provide controlled climate conditions necessary for the safe preservation of most museum artifacts. Not only that, as a result of current space limitations at the Mall Museum, only about 20 percent of the Nation's aircraft collection is on public display. Mr. Speaker, some of our Nation's most historic aircraft are hidden from public view. The Enola Gay, the SR-71 Blackbird spy plane, the space shuttle Enterprise, and many others sit in warehouses because there is no room for these large artifacts at the Mall Museum facility. The extension facility will provide the space necessary to house and exhibit these great artifacts for families who come from all over the country with the Air and Space Museum at the top of their sightseeing list. The Mall Museum is the most popular of the Smithsonian's museums and the extension is expected to draw significant crowds too. Approximately 7 to 8 million people now visit the Air and Space Museum on the mall and an estimated 2 to 3.5 million visitors are expected annually at the extension. In 1993, the Smithsonian Institution was first authorized to plan and design an Air and Space Museum Extension at Washington Dulles International Airport and I was pleased to support this effort. In fiscal year 1996, Congress and the Commonwealth of Virginia provided funding for planning and design work on the extension. Further work on schematic plans are planned in preparation for the construction phase of the project. While Congress has authorized and appropriated funding for planning and design work, Congress has previously made it clear that no Federal funds are to be made available for the construction portion of the project. Instead, the Smithsonian Institution is responsible for raising private funds for construction of the extension and already, the Air and Space Museum has begun to build a capital campaign infrastructure. A National Air and Space Society membership program was begun in 1995 to generate public support for the museum and the extension and already more than 4,000 people have joined and contributed. The legislation I am introducing today merely authorizes the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to construct the museum extension and also makes clear that no appropriated funds are to be used to pay any expense of the construction of this facility. The new Director of the Smithsonian Institution, former Federal Aviation Administration Administrator and retired Adm. Donald Engen, has stated that his No. 1 priority will be to wage a national campaign to raise adequate funding for construction and his goal will be accomplished more effectively once Congress has clearly authorized this construction. Mr. Speaker, the museum extension will significantly increase the amount of the collection on public display, provide safe and climate- controlled storage facilities, and provide a restoration facility capable of the handling the largest artifacts in the collection in full view of visitors. Federal funds will not be used for construction of the extension and instead these costs will be paid for by privately raised funds. I urge my colleagues to support the Air and Space Museum Extension project and this legislation authorizing its construction.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, CAPT. John William (Jack) Kennedy is coming home. Next Friday, August 2, a nearly 25-year saga surrounding the fate of Captain Kennedy, a missing-in-action Air Force pilot in Vietnam, will end at Arlington National Cemetery. On August 16, 1971, Air Force Captain Kennedy was flying an O-2A aircraft, solo, on a visual reconnaissance mission over the Quangtin Province of South Vietnam when radio contact was lost. He was a forward air controller pilot for the 20th Tactical Air Support Squadron based in Chu Lai, Vietnam, in support of the 23d Infantry Division. The area in which he was flying was rugged mountainous terrain covered by thick jungle and a known location of enemy ground forces. When Captain Kennedy failed to respond to normal communications checks, a search effort was initiated. But no crash was found, no radio contacts made, and no witnesses were identified. He was listed as ``Mission in Action,'' a status he carried until the Air Force moved to change it to ``Presumed Killed in Action'' in July 1978. Mr. Speaker, I call Captain Kennedy to the attention of our colleagues because his is a case I became familiar with during the 1980's when I represented his hometown of Arlington, VA. It was then that I met his mother, Sally Kennedy, who was active in the National League of Families. She was stalwart in her determination to find out what happened to her son, and, in the larger context of working with the National League of Families, to help keep alive the effort to determine the fate of all those service personnel missing in action. She was tenacious in making sure that a search was ongoing to find Jack's crash site, and has been kept advised of all that went on with the various search teams that went in each year they were allowed into Vietnam as the National League of Families diligently sought to obtain permission throughout the years. As tensions between the United States and Vietnam decreased, significant levels of activity in identifying and exploring possible U.S. forces crash sites took place. In 1992, after several visits and discussion with Vietnamese villagers, a possible crash site was identified. At that time no conclusive evidence was available to specifically identify the site as Jack's. In 1993, several bone fragments, reportedly from the pilot of that aircraft, were provided by villagers. Also engines of the type used on Jack Kennedy's aircraft were found in the area. It wasn't until just recently that techniques were such that DNA could be extracted from these bone fragments and compared with those of his mother. Just this past May, the U.S. Air Force positively identified those bone fragments as belonging to Capt. John William Kennedy. Jack's remains arrived at Travis Air Force Base, CA, in late June and will be flown to Washington, DC, on August 1 with funeral services next Friday morning, August 2, at the Fort Myers Chapel with interment with full military honors including a flyover at Arlington National Cemetery. John William Kennedy was born in Washington, DC, on May 1, 1947; raised in Arlington, VA; graduated from Wakefield High School in 1965 and Virginia Military Institute in 1969. At VMI he was the 1969 Southern Conference Wrestling Champion in the 160-pound class, was cocaptain of the varsity wresting and soccer teams, a member of the VMI Honor Court, was included in ``Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities'' and Kappa Alpha after graduation. In 1980, he was also inducted into the VMI Sports Hall of Fame. He began active duty in the U.S. Air Force in October 1969, and for his military service was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, Purple Heart, Air Medal with 2 oak leaf clusters National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, and Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal. In addition to his mother, Sally Kennedy, of Lake Ridge, VA, he is survived by his brother Daniel E. Kennedy, Jr., of Dumfries, VA, also a VMI, Class of 1966, graduate and retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force with one combat tour in Southeast Asia from 1972 to 1973. The waiting and hoping and wondering for the Kennedy family has not come to an end and as Sally Kennedy said in a recent letter, ``time will bring a peace and finality to me.'' she also reminded as a poet has written, ``A man is never dead until he is forgotten.'' Mr. Speaker, we express not only our sympathies to the Kennedy family, but also our gratitude for the service to his country of Capt. John William Kennedy. And we offer a prayer that some day all the families whose loved ones served their Nation but remain missing in action can find peace.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to express some reservations. I commend the leadership on both sides for what they are trying to do. Eventually these countries ought to be part of NATO, no matter what Russia thinks. However, I have some reservations. First, Poland. In Poland I wish Lech Walesa was still the head. In Poland a former leading member of the Polish Communist government is not the new prime minister. In Hungary, foreign investors are concerned that socialism is coming back, and many people who were Communists when we knew they were Communists are now back in the government. In Bulgaria, there are many Communists that have come back in government and, hopefully, the democratic leaning party will win in the upcoming election. In Romania, many of the same people that were in the Ceausescu government are still part of the government. So I am concerned about this. Also I think if this does pass that we should lay the word down that we expect all of these countries to respect human rights: freedom of religion, freedom of worship, no antisemitism, freedom of movement, and freedom of expression. I am concerned that perhaps we should wait and hold out a little longer on NATO expansion to make sure these countries really do join democracy, whereby they become eligible for NATO. So I commend the gentlemen on both sides but I want to raise some concerns. If communism comes back, these countries ought not be part of NATO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express concern about H.R. 3564, the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996. I have some serious reservations about expanding this critical alliance at this time. Things are still too uncertain in the newly democratic countries in Eastern and Central Europe. I support the concept of NATO expansion, but I think it's too early to be changing the formula that has worked to preserve peace in Western Europe for so long. More time need to pass to give these new governments a chance to show that they are truly committed to democracy, human rights, and being the kind of government necessary to be a trustworthy partner in NATO. I am encouraged by the progress I have seen since 1989. Some countries are doing better than others, but for the most part we do not see today the kinds of human rights abuses we saw in the pre-1989 ear. Elections have taken place. Good constitutions have been put in place. Rule-of-law is advancing. Individual freedoms--such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of association--are being preserved. But, I agree with the words of University of Illinois professor Ed Kolodziej, as reported on June 18 in an article in the Christian Science Monitor, ``I don't think [these countries] are ripe by a long shot.'' I am deeply concerned that in many countries in Eastern and Central Europe, former communists are in some capacity in government. In Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria former members of the Communist party are in charge. In other countries, they are still politically active. Some of them are reformed Communists; some of them are not. It is crucial that we let enough time pass to be able to determine who is who. Actions speak louder than words. We must be able to differentiate clearly between those who are truly committed to democracy and those who are only talking the talk before we commit to protect them. Things are better, but they are not perfect. I have heard reports that Hungarian Government representatives, at a conference in Budapest during the first week of July, adopted a provocative declaration on the status of Hungarians abroad causing concern for its neighbors. While I remain concerned over the state of Hungarian minority communities in Europe, this declaration illustrated a regrettable insensitivity toward Hungary's neighbors. There are still reports that high-profile individuals, journalists and foreigners are subject to surveillance by security agents in Romania. When new countries join NATO, they are full-fledged partners. They are entitled to all of our military secrets and the full protection of the United States. I just do not think that the American people are ready for new commitments overseas when we can barely get support for current ones. We currently have 22,000 American troops doing a great job bringing peace to Bosnia, but I know this is not a popular idea with the American people. Would there be the support to send troops to Poland or Hungary or Romania to help governments with former Communists in power? I don't think so. Not right now. Not before democracy has been tested and tried in Central and Eastern Europe and Communists no longer have influence. So, Mr. Speaker, I support the concept of NATO expansion, but I don't think we should do it now. It's too early.