Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to bring to the attention of the body there is a man named Robert Hussein who was converted to Christianity in Kuwait. As a result of his conversion to Christianity on May 29, a court in Kuwait has found him guilty, and the punishment is potential death. And the endangered species in this world today that we talk about so much are Christians. Christians are being persecuted around the world more today than any other time in this century, and I just wanted to urge the gentleman from Alabama if he would follow this because, if he recalls, and I know he does, during the 1980's we in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats, stood firm with those of the Jewish faith who were persecuted in Russia. In fact, I am concerned that the persecution will begin again after this election. They are basically privatizing anti-Semitism in Russia. So it is important for us to rally to the defense of those who are being persecuted, and because of so many Christians being persecuted in the Middle East and other places, and Robert Hussein, who has been potentially sentenced to death, and the fact that the United States Government sent hundreds of thousands of troops in defense of Kuwait and 300 Americans died, if the gentleman from Alabama would be sympathetic in following this issue, particularly later this year, but next year if this does not change, or if anything should happen to Mr. Hussein.

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] for that very strong statement. Mr. Chairman, on May 29, 1996, a judge in the Kuwaiti family court declared Robert Hussein to be an apostate. The judge, Amar Al-Sabiti, also gave a written ruling stating that Mr. Hussein's wife should be divorced from him and his possessions should be distributed among his heirs and he could be killed. ``The Imam [ruler] should kill him without a chance to repent.'' Hussein Qambar Ali, a convert from Islam to Christianity, is in the midst of a national court case. This decision by the court sets a precedent as to whether or not the Kuwaiti Constitution will be interpreted under Islamic Sharia law. This would mean that the constitutional religious freedom guarantees would be void and a convert--or apostate--could be killed with impunity. Hussein has changed his name to Robert Hussein. Robert got into this situation through a court case over the custody of his children. His estranged wife, a Muslim, will not allow him to see his children despite his winning custody of them in court. Robert returned to court to have the decision enforced, and everything has been in an uproar as Hussein publicly confessed his conversion to Christianity. Several Muslim lawyers have filed cases against Hussein wanting him to be charged with apostasy. Members of Parliament have called for his death. Hussein has had to live in hiding, has lost his family business due to his family not allowing him to be part of it as he is no longer a Muslim. The Sharia family court is looking at the case to see if it has jurisdiction or if this is a civil matter because it deals with Hussein's civil rights: child custody, inheritance, and most importantly, freedom of religion. The United States still has troops in Kuwait. American troops died while fighting to protect Kuwaiti from Iraq and Saddam Hussein. We should urge the Kuwaiti Government to make a public statement supporting Hussein's constitutional rights and his freedom of religion and guaranteeing his protection from death threats from those who want to kill him. Also, the Kuwaiti Government should ensure that their judicial process has integrity, both in the legal representation Hussein should have, which he does not have, and in showing the legitimacy of Kuwait's Constitution--Will it stand? Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].

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

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I have a picture here showing Chinese security forces lining men up and putting pistols in the back of their heads and shooting them, and then they take their kidneys and their cornea for transplantations and sell them to people in the West. We are going to give MFN to a country like this? What baffles me is, as a Member who has served in this body during the 1980's when Sakharov was under house arrest, and it was his 75th birthday yesterday, and Sharansky was in Perm Camp 35, no Member of the Congress would have had the courage to come to the well of this House and ask for MFN for the Soviet Union, and yet this administration and this Congress are really going to consider doing that. Members may not want to hear this, and the administration may not want to hear this. This may be the fundamental moral human rights issue that this Congress has to deal with. Take a look, Members, and I have the film, the 13-minute film. Call my office, we will bring it by. Lining men up, putting pistols in the back of their head, shooting them, and then taking their kidneys and corneas for transplant. No MFN for barbaric people like this.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. I will go with my statement, but I do want to comment on one thing. She is exactly right, and look how far we have slipped in this country, in both Republican and Democratic Parties, on the issue of human rights. In 1984 and 1985, if any Member of Congress had gotten up on the floor of the House and said that the Soviet Union should get the most- favored-nation trading status, when Scharansky was in Permanent Camp 35 in the gulags in the cold, snowy Ural Mountains. And when Sakharov was under house arrest, no Member of Congress, no administration would have had the courage, the guts, the stupidity or whatever to ever get up and say that they felt that the Soviet Union should get the MFN. Now we see people in both parties now saying that China should get MFN, when we see all of these things that have taken place and many more that I will go through before I finish. The second point is, the gentlewoman makes the case about Hong Kong. What will the Congress and the administration say next year when the Chinese troops come marching into Hong Kong, almost like a World War II movie? What will they say then? I will be interested in what Members of Congress of both parties will say and what this administration will say, or the next administration, if there is a change. Third, the American people are farther along on this issue than is the Congress or the Clinton administration. The latest surveys and polls show how strongly and deeply the American people care about MFN and China and human rights and nuclear proliferation. I think the latest survey had it will over 70 percent of the Americans were concerned, and yet I wish 70 percent of the Clinton administration was concerned. I wish 7 percent of the Clinton administration was concerned. So what will they say? And, frankly, if the American people could vote on this issue, China would not get MFN. Let me move right along. This photo I have here, which I would like to cover, when you hear the President talk about MFN, you must remember, I tell my colleagues, this photo. When you think of MFN, remember that public executions are taking place in China, where the Government of China routinely executes so- called criminals by shooting them in the back of the head in front of crowds. Remember that school children are herded to execution sites in buses to watch the killings and the workers are given the day off. And remember the executions are carried out as part of an official effort to quiet the masses. What you have here are security police lined up in back of young men who have been convicted. They are pulling out their pistols, almost reminiscent of a World War II movie of Nazi Germany, and they put the pistols in the back of the heads of these men and they shoot them. They kill them. I would urge any Member of Congress who wants to know more about this, I have the video, the actual video in my office that we will give to any Member's office to look at this video. What they then do is after they kill these individuals, they take the corneas and their kidneys for transplantation. If the Soviet Union had ever done that, who would have ever gotten up saying that they should get MFN? Yet we have it on film, and actual shots of soldiers and police killing these people and taking their kidneys out for transplantation. No Member of Congress on either side, whether you are for MFN, whether you are against MFN, whether you are undecided on MFN, no Member of Congress should vote on this issue without seeing the film and the video where the Chinese police and army are killing these people by putting a pistol in the back of their head and shooting them, and later taking them and using their kidneys for transplantation. Remember when you hear MFN that the kidneys and corneas are taken from the dead bodies minutes afterward and are sold for transplantation for profits for those in the Chinese Government, some as high as $30,000 apiece. I know you did not hear about that in President Clinton's statement. He would not have the courage or the guts to talk about that. But when you think of it, Members of Congress, on both sides, you have to think in terms of these violations of human rights and executing people before you vote on this issue. When you think of MFN, remember that the Chinese Government continues to force women to have abortions in an attempt to keep down the population, and deny health and medical care and economic opportunity to families that refuse to comply with these draconian policies. Remember when you think of MFN, the credible evidence of children each year in Chinese state-run orphanages being denied food and medical care and tied into their cribs to die. I know that was not in President Clinton's statement. I know it was not in his statement, but just remember when you vote on MFN, this is one of the issues that you are dealing with, whether you like it or not. And proliferation. When you think of MFN, remember that the Chinese Government sold ring magnets to Pakistan that can be used to make nuclear weapons, yes, nuclear weapons that can be pointed against this country or other innocent people around the world. Remember that the United States Government found out about these controversial sales and urged the Chinese Government to cut it out. They have refused twice. They have said they did not know about the ring magnets. Some confusing signals were sent. Some confusing statements were issued. In the end, embarrassingly so, the Clinton administration said it reached a deal, a promise from the Chinese Government, a promise from the Chinese Government that they would not do it again, a promise from the Government that has executed people like this that they would not do it again; a promise from the Government that is tracking down women on forced abortions that they would not do it again; a promise from the Government that is putting Catholic priests and bishops in jail, some for up to 35 years, they promised they would not do it again; that is raiding house churches and persecuting evangelicals, that they would not do it again. How much do you think that promise from the Chinese Government is worth? And remember when you think of MFN that the intelligence sources indicate that the Chinese Government also sold M-11 missiles to Pakistan and patrol boats to Iran, and remember no sanctions were imposed for these actions. Remember, no sanctions were imposed for these actions. Remember that on April 17, 1996, the Washington Times reported that Chinese nuclear technicians would be going to Iran to help build a uranium plant that will ``help Tehran's nuclear weapons program.'' Remember that, Members on both sides, when you think of MFN, remember that. And also remember Taiwan. When you think of MFN, remember that the belligerent Government of the PRC conducted missile tests, military exercises, off the coast of Taiwan just weeks before the first democratic Presidential election in Taiwan's history. So when you think and hear the words MFN, MFN, it is like a free word or term thrown around this town. Oh, some of the big, large K street law firms will do pretty well representing a few handful of businesses that are doing business in China but, as the gentlewoman from California has stated, it is a bad deal for us. Economically, trade, blue-collar workers all over the country, from New England to the South, textile workers from the Midwest all the way to the west coast are losing jobs because of this trade. Our Members should know that Windows 95 was available in pirated version in the streets of Beijing before it was available here, the intellectual property that the Chinese Government are exploiting with regard to American businesses. Remember those things. And remember all of the other things, that the economic liberalization has done nothing to improve our relations. Remember Harry Wu, how he documents that there are more slave labor camps and gulags in China than there were in the Soviet Union. I visited Beijing Prison No. 1, where we saw workers working on socks for export to the United States, and they were making jelly shoes that youngsters wear in the United States for export to the United States. Do you think an American company could compete with Tiananmen Square demonstrators working for nothing in a cold, snowy prison where there is no OSHA requirements, there is no EPA requirements, there are no minimum wage requirements? There are no requirements except you meet your quota or else. So as we think of the word MFN, I hope we will think in terms of all the different issues, from religious persecution, Catholic priests and bishops in jail, evangelical pastors in jail, prisoners working in slave labor, even people working in sweat shops for 12 to 15 hours a day at 9 cents an hour that are taking away American jobs. Yet this administration and some in Congress on both sides of the aisle are clamoring to see that this Congress and this administration gives MFN to China. I hope and pray that when the Congress votes on this issue this summer there will be a majority of men and women on both sides of the aisle that would join hands and vote to deny MFN for China, even though Clinton may veto the bill. Let it be on his conscience, not on ours. Even though Clinton may allow it to go through and we may not override the veto, let it be a burden that he has to carry, not that we have to carry. This is, I think, one of the leading moral fundamental issues that this Congress will have to deal with in this country, because we all quote in these speeches we give on July 4 what the Declaration of Independence says. It says, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' They did not come from Congress. It said ``by their Creator,'' their God. These are God-given rights. An individual, a Chinese person, man, woman, or child in China, is as entitled to the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of worship and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as somebody in any other part of the world. It says in the Bible: To whom much is given, much is expected. And much has been given to our country, because we have stood firm on these fundamental values on both sides of the aisle. I remember when the persecution took place in the Soviet Union, it was Senator Jackson, a Democrat, and Charlie Vanik, a Democrat, that passed Jackson-Vanik to put tight restrictions on the Soviet Union that would not give them MFN. We joined hands in a bipartisan way. Let us hope when the roll is called, when the roll is called and we are given the opportunity to vote, let us hope that an overwhelming majority, not everyone, we are not going to get everyone, but an overwhelming majority will vote to deny MFN, most-favored-nation trading status, for a country that should not be given a most-favored- nation trading status because of all the very bad and very evil things, not only that it has done, but it continues to do and appears that is will do in the future.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I hope all the Members listened to what the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] said on the trade issue. We are losing big time. I thank the gentlewoman from California for her statement and letting the Members take a focus on that. As the gentlewoman said today, the President announced before the Pacific Basin Economic Council that he is going to extend most-favored- nation trading status to the butchers of Beijing, who have done so many things. We are not surprised that he made that announcement, because this administration has flip-flopped on this issue of human rights, but I want the American people, but more important, everyone, to focus as they are listening to the President and they talk about MFN on what they should think about when they hear the words ``MFN.'' When we hear MFN, and we will hear the business community and the Clinton administration and we will hear others in certain Republican leadership positions say they want MFN, we have to think of the following: We have to think MFN, then think of the suffering evangelical Christians in China who, according to Freedom House, have said ``This is the most repressive period since the pre-Deng period in the late 1970's.'' So when you think of MFN, think of the evangelical Christians that are being persecuted. Mr. Speaker, we should also remember that in 1995 the Chinese Government intensified its crackdown on religious believers by enacting strict new laws restricting religious worship. I know you did not hear that in the President's speech, and I know you will not hear that by the leadership of both sides of this Congress; but when you hear MFN, think of religious crackdowns. Mr. Speaker, did my colleagues know that the officials in China's Religious Security Bureau said that house churches, China's system of unofficial Protestant and Catholic churches, should be pulled up by their roots, and a Hong Kong newspaper reported last month on many new reports of harassment of Protestants and Catholic believers in certain areas of China. Think of that when you think of MFN. Remember that the police have vowed to hit and eradicate five Christian-based religious groups in the Anhui Province in China. When you think of MFN, think of that. My colleagues should also know that an American missionary reported earlier this year that the Chinese Government was circulating an arrest warrant with the names of 3,000 Chinese evangelical preachers and house-church movements. When Members on both sides think of MFN, think of that. Remember that in February and March of 1996 in the Baoding region of the Hebei Province, authorities went school to school weeding out Catholic students and teachers, and ordering them to join the State church. Students who refused were kicked out of school, and teachers who refused were demoted or fired. You did not hear that in the President's statement today before the Pacific Economic Council, oh, no, but you should remember it as you think of MFN. Remember that in November 1995, 150 public security officers destroyed a newly built Catholic Church in Baoding Province and severely beat 7 Catholic construction workers. This was the fourth incident in 16 months. You did not hear that in the President's speech, but Members on both sides of the aisle should remember that when they think of MFN. Remember that scores of priests and religious believers were detained during the First Lady's visit to Beijing in September 1995 in order to silence them. We never heard anything about that from anybody in this Congress who is concerned, talking about giving MFN. When you think of MFN, think of Bishop Jingmu, a 76-year-old Catholic bishop who was arrested in November and secretly sentenced to 2 years in prison without a public hearing. When you think of MFN, think of Bishop Su Chimin, a Catholic bishop in the Baoding diocese, who was rounded up in 1994, after the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Chris Smith, visited him in China, and beaten severely in prison. He was rearrested in March 1996, this year, March 1996, and is being held incommunicado without charge. Think of these things, I would urge my colleagues on both sides. If the administration has forgotten about them, we should not forget about them. Think of these things. So when you think of MFN, think of religious persecution. Then, when you think of MFN, think of Tibet. When you think of MFN, remember that the Government of the People's Republic of China tightened its grip on Tibet in 1994 and 1995 by restricting religious practices of Tibetan Buddhists. Remember that Tibetan monks and nuns were reportedly required to strip off their clothes before beatings, and are routinely raped in jail. Over 50 percent of Tibetan prisoners of conscience in detention by Chinese authorities are monks and nuns. You did not hear that today when the President spoke. You will not hear that when Members of Congress get up and say they want MFN, but you should think of MFN persecution in Tibet. Remember that the Chinese Government restricts the number of monks and nuns allowed in Tibetan monasteries, sharply restricts teachings in the church, and sharply curtails renovation of buildings and monasteries. So when you think of MFN, think of what goes on in Tibet. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the matter of human rights. Perhaps the most basic of these rights is just to be able to exist or to live. And I am compelled to speak on America's role in protecting and promoting these basic rights. Like it or not, we are the nation to which the world turns for leadership and direction, especially in the area of human rights. Quite frankly, our Government is just not doing a good job here. It isn't measuring up. The administration has failed to exercise leadership all around the globe in the area of human rights. There has been a total collapse of will, of spine, of backbone in dealing with terrible things happening to people in every corner of the world. Events that we could alter-- that we, in the past, have altered--by standing up to tough guy dictators who treat their own with brutality and terrorism. I wish it wasn't necessary to talk about this right now because this is the campaign season and honest criticism and frustration are sometimes discounted as just more candidate bashing. But I'm not bashing the administration. I want President Clinton to succeed in promoting human rights. In his State of the Union Speech on January 25, 1994, he stood right there and said ``as we build a more constructive relationship with China, we must continue to insist on clear signs of improvement in that nation's human rights record.'' I alone arose from my seat over there to applaud his courageous intentions. But he didn't follow through. And the men and women in China are worse off today for our failure to lead. Just as the men and women in southern Sudan are worse off, and the Nagorno-Karabach, Turkey, Tibet, Burundi, even Vietnam and elsewhere. But this afternoon, I want to focus on Chechnya, a fractious part of the Russian Federation of States, which I visited last year, and where unbelievably brutal events are unfolding. Chechnya could be the catalyst that results in a Russian Federation dominated by communism again. It should have been enough to count the dead men, women, and children to see something must be done about Chechnya. But if it were not, it should then be enough to also see the villages and hamlets across the land that have been ravaged. But if that were still not enough add the once thriving capital city of Grozny which has been leveled, where few buildings remain standing; only hollow skeletons amid huge piles of rubble. That scene surely calls for remedy. To give the administration some credit, perhaps they wanted to do something helpful there. But faulty and sporadic rhetoric have only made things worse. At one point the administration said Chechyna is an internal or civil problem. Russia then took this to mean that we would look the other way while they embarked on an effort to crush Chechyna. When the tragedy of war became too apparent to bear in silence, our Government began to urge President Yeltsin to bring this conflict to an end. Each time a high level delegation from the United States, either the President, Secretary of State or other high official, was scheduled to meet with the Yeltsin government, they would intensify their war effort to crush the Chechens hoping to claim the problem had been solved and peace is being restored even before our Government delegation arrived and could raise the issue. This cat and mouse brand of diplomacy had the effect of ratcheting up the killing and bombing and shelling. And more Chechens died. But more Russian soldiers continued to die as well. The Chechens are fierce fighters and good soldiers comfortable in their homeland which they know like the back of their hand. They, too, can be ruthless and are not pushovers. They have taken a grueling toll on the Russian troops. This, coupled with the hemorrhage of rubles to wage this war, the humiliating realization by the Russian people that their army may be only a paper tiger that cannot over-run even tiny Chechnya, and the stingingly negative world opinion showering down on the Yeltsin government, has made this a key issue in the upcoming June elections. What is at stake in these elections is the soul of Russia. And the major candidates to control its soul are President Boris Yeltsin on one hand and the Communist leaders on the other. President Yeltsin himself has said he may not win re-election if the Chechnya war continues. Let me say that again. The Russian people, tired of and embarrassed by the war in Chechnya, could turn away from President Yeltsin and re-embrace communism as, perhaps, the lesser among evils. Russia could return to communism as we stand idly, too timid or too confused to force the Chechen issue. Now I absolutely do not suggest this is something which should involve U.S. forces. That would clearly be irresponsible. What we have is two belligerents engaged in a struggle which neither side knows how to end. Like two feuding family members unable and unwilling to stop fighting even when both recognize continuing conflict is worse than any resolution available. Sometimes it takes an outsider to demand a truce. I don't want to trivialize this conflict but it is not unlike two small boys whaling away at one another and both are secretly delighted when someone steps between them. I have, again and again, written the President and others in his administration--and Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record copies of these letters--urging that our Government offer and encourage both sides, Russian and Chechen, to accept the offer of an American statesman of high stature and achievement to help search for peace. A broker or negotiator or arbitrator--choose a title--but someone with wisdom, experience and diplomacy to help find an accord where neither side is a loser, killing and destruction end and people can begin rebuilding lives. The administration barely even acknowledges my letters, which would be OK if they were pursuing another workable outcome. They are not. They again arrange a high level meeting with the Yeltsin government which spurs the Russians toward a renewed offensive to stamp out the Chechens. More killing and destruction result; time passes; frustration and bitterness grow and the cycle begins anew. This is not diplomacy. This is not international leadership. This is folly. It seems that our Government is abdicating its role as a world leader. A role no other power can assume. And the void is being filled around the world with brush fires and geographically contained arenas of terror and terrorism. But the stakes in Chechnya may be higher. Communism might be the winner in this round. And if it is, it will not only be the Russians who are the losers. It will be every free nation and those who thirst for freedom. And surely, America will be among the losers if this happens. And that will be the biggest shame of all because we had, in our grasp, the ability to try to lead the world into a tomorrow of relative peace and tranquility. Even if a resurgence of communism did not hinge on the resolution of the conflict in Chechnya, and Mr. Speaker, the political picture in Russia is such a tangled web no one could predict with any certainty the outcome at the Russian ballot box on June 16, the administration should still prod the Russian Government into finding peace. Isn't peace and the end of killing and the destruction of a society a worthy goal in itself? Of course it is and it is one our Government ought to resolutely pursue with dispatch. I implore the administration to not let this slip through their fingers. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letters I referered to above. The information referred to follows: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, January 26, 1996. Hon. William J. Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: The brutal conflict in Chechnya is now in its second month. Gruesome images of the fighting emerge day after day. Thousands of Chechnyans have died in the fighting, including many innocent women and children. While the U.S. position has been that this is an ``internal Russian affair,'' the American people certainly have an interest in bringing an end to the fighting. Besides the obvious human tragedy occurring as men, women and children continue to die, Russia is a major recipient of U.S. foreign aid. This war is causing many in the Congress to consider whether Russia is deserving of such aid and whether the entire U.S.-Russian relationship should be re-examined, particularly our close ties to President Yeltsin. Continuation of this conflict will have major implications for the future of the Yeltsin government, the Russian economy and Russia's already fragile relationship with its neighbors. I believe our government should use its diplomatic leverage now to help bring peace to the region. I am writing to propose that you appoint former President George Bush, or possibly former Secretary of State James Baker, as special emissary for this purpose; to go to Moscow, meet with President Yeltsin and other Russian leaders, and present your viewpoint on the importance of quickly ending the Chechnyan conflict. I believe President Bush could be very helpful in ending the fighting and stopping the killing. Mr. President, I hope you will give careful consideration to this proposal and move quickly in sending an emissary to Russia. Thank you. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I have the sad duty to report the passing last month of a remarkable American patriot, Harold F. Ogden, of Fairfax, VA, who died on March 14 at the age of 98. Harold Ogden, a retired colonel in the Army reserve, was a native of Melrose, MA and had lived in the Washington, DC., area since 1946. He began his military career with the 1st Calvary of the Massachusetts Volunteer Militia in 1916. The following year, he took part in the punitive expedition against Pancho Villa in Mexico. He was called to active Army duty for World War I service in Europe as a motorcycle courier, then served in the army of occupation in Germany. He retired from the Army as a captain in 1926 and worked as a construction engineer in Melrose before being recalled to active duty as a major near the outbreak of World War II. During the war, he served in the United States, Europe and the Middle East before retiring in 1946. He retired from the reserves in 1955. I will always remember Colonel Ogden for his devoted service to the American Legion, which he served for 74 years, and the opportunities I had to participate with him in wreath laying ceremonies in the 10th District of Virginia to honor our Nation's veterans on Veterans Day. He never aspired to high office in the American Legion, but he served when called and was a past commander and chaplain emeritus of Unknown Soldier Post 44 in Arlington, VA; chaplain emeritus of the Virginia Department of American Legion's 17th District. He also held and committee posts for the department of Virginia including serving on the finance committee and chairing a Legion beautification project in Arlington. He was a member of the La Societe of the Forty & Eight and served Voiture Locale 934 offices up to and including Chef de Gare, and was chaplain emeritus of both Voiture 934 and the Grande du Virginia. In 1991, Colonel Ogden was among the World War I veterans that took part in special memorial services in France in rememberance of the American Expeditionary Force. He had been decorated with the Silver Star during the War and received the French Croix de Guerre at the memorial service. Mr. Speaker, we honor the memory of Harold Ogden and the devoted service he gave to this Nation and send our sympathies to his wife Ruth Ogden of Fairfax, his children and grandchildren.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, money and power. That is the influence too often on Capitol Hill when it comes to the legislative process. Money and power. The American people more and more every day hold this institution in disrepute because of the influence they see wielded by special interests whose bottom line is money and power. That influence has been evident throughout the legislative history of a bill to create a national commission to study what a front page article in today's Washington Post calls the ``explosive growth in legalized gambling.'' And today, as Post reporter Blaine Harden reports, ``Nevada-based gambling interests working with prominent Republican lobbyists'' have ``sabotaged'' a bipartisan effort in Congress to pass legislation to establish a National Gambling Study Commission. Money and power. Those special interests are poised to effectively neuter legislation that would provide information to the American people on the effects of what has become a $40-billion-a-year industry that generates, according to the Post article, ``six times the revenue of all American spectator sports combined.'' Think about that. Six times the revenue of all spectator sports combined. And when you add to spectator sports revenue other leisure activities for which American spend their money, such as movie box office totals, theme parks, cruise ships, and recorded music, that combined total is over $3 billion less than gambling revenues in a year. As our colleagues will recall, we unanimously passed a responsible and fair National Gambling Study Commission bill in the House on March 5. There was bipartisan support for the legislation which has over 140 House cosponsors and which garnered the support of family interests groups across America and major newspapers including the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, Cincinnati Enquirer, Dallas Morning News, Los Angeles Times, Houston Chronicle, Philadephia Inquirer, USA Today, Portland Oregonian, New Orleans Times- Picayune, Indianapolis News, and Washington Post, among others. But money and power have an insidious way of spreading their tentacles of influence and the gambling interests unleashed their money and power and were ready this morning with killer amendments to the gambling study bill in the Senate that would have made a mockery of the legislation. Perhaps the light of the Post article today shone too brightly on this disgraceful show because the Senate bill was pulled from the markup. But the fingerprints of the gambling industry are all over the current effort in the Senate to stop the National Gambling Study Commission. Gambling interests last year set up the Washington-based American Gaming Association headed by Frank Fahrenkopf, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, who the Post report says is being paid over a half million a year for his work. He, in turn, hired Kenneth Duberstein, former top adviser to President Ronald Reagan, and other Republican Party and Presidential aides, as well as a former Democrat Member of Congress and the former chief floor counsel to then Democrat Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, among others, to carry the water for the gambling industry and wield its money and power influence. Just what did the gambling interests get for their high-priced and well-placed cadre of lobbyists? They have managed to rewrite the gambling bill that was ready for markup today in the Senate with amendments which would turn the study commission into a library study group with no power to convene investigative hearings, no power to subpoena information, no authority to do any original research and confined to only reviewing information that already exists, and with a limitation to only make recommendations on Indian and Internet gambling. And one more amendment from the gambling interests: the Commission is directed not to examine the economic impact of gambling on businesses, political contributions, the relationship between gambling and crime, a review of the demographics of gamblers, a review of law enforcement, a review of State, Indian and Federal gambling policy, advertising or other issues the Commission chairman may deem appropriate. And a final amendment: for what is supposed to be an objective commission charged with the responsibility of studying the full effects of gambling on American society, the gambling interests successfully pushed their way to the study table with the amendment to provide that individuals with an interest in the gambling industry should be appointed to the Commission. With these amendments, the National Gambling Study Commission may as well convene at the library and chat about the books the gambling interests check out to read. This is a sham and a disgrace and an insult to the American people who are being suckered in by an industry which thrives when it operates in the shadows, much like roaches which find their way around in the dark. When the light shines though, the gambling interests, much like the roaches, scurry to hide. Money and power. High-priced lobbyists and political connections at work to thwart an attempt to provide basic information to cash-strapped local and State governments being drawn into the promises of easy money from legalized gambling. Why are the gambling interests spending millions of dollars in political contributions and lobbying campaigns to stop a national study of gambling's effects on America? Why are they trying to stop a bill that will allow an objective, comprehensive, and impartial legal and factual assessment of gambling, a bill that does not outlaw gambling, that does not tax gambling, that does not regulate gambling? Why would they turn a blind eye to the stories of poor mothers playing the slots with their children's lunch money, or teenagers so addicted to gambling that they prostitute their girlfriends to pay off their mob debts, or the accounts of Americans who are so distraught over their mounting gambling debts that their only perceived recourse is suicide. From what information we have gathered today, we see a picture of gambling hurting people and businesses. How many suicides and near misses does it take to make the case? How many bankruptcies and broken homes? How many failed careers, failed marriages and broken dreams are needed to register on the misery meter? What is the gambling industry afraid of? What is driving their effort to stop this national commission to study the explosive influence of gambling on the American culture? Money and power. Consider these facts: In Missouri, the gambling lobby spent $11.5 million, mostly raised from out-of-state companies, on a successful 1994 referendum to allow slot machines in casinos. According to an Associated Press report by Jim Drinkard, ``after failing in its first attempt to legalize slot machines on Missouri riverboats, the gambling industry took no chance and spared no expense.'' Following a pattern that has been repeated across the country, Drinkard reported that it hired the chief strategist for then House Democrat majority leader, considered to be Missouri's most visible politician, paying her $218,750 to help win passage of the 1994 referendum. In Louisiana, the gambling lobby contributed $1.07 million to State legislators in 1993 and 1994, $1 out of every $5 given to lawmakers and three times as much as was given by the petro-chemical industry. In Florida, the gambling lobby spent $16.5 million on an unsuccessful referendum campaign to legalize casinos in 1994, only $1 million less than the Republican and Democrat gubernatorial nominees spent in the Governor's race combined. In Connecticut, four gambling groups spent $4.9 million over the last 4 years in an unsuccessful campaign to lobby the State for a casino. In my own State of Virginia, gambling lobbyists spent over $1.1 million over 2 years to convince the general assembly to legalize casinos. In Illinois, the gambling lobby contributed $1.24 million to candidates for State office between July 1, 1993, and June 30, 1994. Also in that State at one point gambling interests in Illinois had under contract people who formerly were Governor State senate president, house majority leader, attorney general, State police director, circuit judge, Chicago mayor, and two U.S. attorneys. The former head of the State gaming regulatory board now lobbies for a major gambling group and at least three former board officials are on casino payrolls. According to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, over the past few years the gambling industry overall gave at least $4.5 million to the Republican and Democrat parties and their candidates for Federal office, including $1.8 million in ``soft money''--unregulated, unlimited contributions to party committees donated since 1991. These money and power brokers have been at work since House passage of the national gambling study bill to negate any responsible, fair or objective effort in the Senate to pass similar legislation. And with their money and power, as today's Washington Post headline proclaims: ``Don't Bet on a U.S. Gambling Study.'' How much longer will the best interests of the American people take a backseat to the influence of money and power in Washington? Money and power.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. The difference is, I would tell the gentleman, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge is the only bridge owned by the Federal Government.

Mr. WOLF. It is a different situation, because it is a federally owned bridge.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what happens is though the States say ``If I am going to get it, I will take it.'' Even my own State said we are against these projects, but if everyone else is doing it, can you do it. So I think it is better that it fits into the overall State's plan. I think the Governor is the best one to determine it and the money ought to go back on a systematic formula. There are good and decent people on both sides. I am not questioning anybody for the way they do this. I think the amendment makes sense, and I ask strong support for the amendment. I am not going to hold my breath until it passes, but it would be a good thing.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I said if this bill becomes law and is signed by the President, I would step down as chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, because I think it would be a fraud to be there.

Mr. WOLF. I urge support of the amendment. announcement by the chairman

Mr. WOLF. Is the gentleman looking forward to that date to take my place, my friend? Although West Virginia has lost a little bit under the change with regard to that, the gentleman was not involved in those other things. It came from the other body.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I do not think it is going to pass. I hope it passes. But what we ought to be doing, and maybe this would be the prelude to next year, is we ought to just take a percentage of the 18.5 cent gasoline tax and turn it back to the States, because I think they know better about where the money ought to be spent than frankly we do in Congress. And when you have a problem in that individual State, then you go defeat that Governor or you change their legislature or you do something. What the gentleman from Wisconsin was saying was a fact. The great State, my neighbor State of West Virginia, in that 1 year got 47 percent of all the highway demo money out of the Committee on Appropriations. Forty-seven percent. There are three wonderful, and I like the gentlemen very much, three good Members of Congress and two outstanding Senators. Let me just say that for the record. I have great respect for Senator Byrd. I think he is a good person, a decent person. But the fact remains that that State has three Representatives, got 47 percent of the money and the rest of the country got 53 percent. Texas got nothing. Florida got nothing. California got nothing. We in the Committee on Appropriations made a decision that was supported on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats, that we would do away with highway demo projects. Some people thought when I got to be chairman of the committee that we would just do everything for my State, and I said, ``That's not why we're here, and we're going to do away with it,'' because I had watched the way that demonstration projects were determined. It was if you voted a certain way, if you did a certain thing. So I thought it was a good idea, and I thought the Minge amendment and the gentleman from California have a good idea. We should be changing the formula. Right now we are disbursing the money on 1980 census data, when the world has changed in 1996 in California and South Carolina. And the gentleman from South Carolina, your State gets 87 percent. You do worse than any other State. So this is a good amendment. Hopefully it will not pit the two committees together. Some people said, ``You are here because you have a jurisdictional issue.'' Let me say, if the highway trust fund is taken off budget and it passes the House and the Senate and is signed by the President, I am going to get out of this committee. It will be a joke. It will be a waste. It will be a fraud. Second, even if this does not pass, I do not want to be chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations for the rest of my life. I sit publicly in hearings. I may ask the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], ``Hey, put me on another committee.'' Put me on the Committee on Foreign Operations. I can do other things other than transportation. So it is not a jurisdictional thing. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] for the effective work here, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] for the effective work here, but this amendment makes sense. Nobody should abuse this amendment, make it look like a stupid amendment. It is a good amendment, and I think it is a way the Congress ought to go. Let us reduce the gasoline tax; let us let the States run it. Whatever we keep at the Federal level, let us change on a formula based on census and fairness. Last, let us not hold anyone accountable who may vote the wrong way because they voted their conscience.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, a highway demonstration project is the State, and we have found out many times the State does not want the money, but the Congress gives them the money for whatever reasons, and you can fill in the blank what those reasons are. After the money ends, the State stops building it. We had the GAO look at it, and many of these highway demonstration projects were never completed because the States did not want it. Once they get the money, they use the money, once they run out, they end it. I would like to give back to the States whereby the Governor of the States can make the decision, and not the handful of people up here based on the fact you like the way the guy voted, or he did not offend you, or whatever the case may be.

Mr. WOLF. It is in a totally different capacity. The Federal Government and Federal Highway Administration has come up to your committee and said that is their responsibility.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Before I get into it, I want to pay my respect to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Appropriations Committee who has been so diligent in trying to solve this deficit. Also to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] who has been a warrior and his staff that have made all the difference. The fact is that if Bob Dole has any sense, he will pick one of the three Johns as his Vice President--Jack Kemp, John McCain, or John Kasich. All would be good for our ticket. John has been a warrior, and to even be dealing with this bill now wipes out many of the things that he has been trying to do. What we are dealing with today is money, power, and pork. Remember those words: Money, power, and pork. Remember the words from Simon and Garfunkel's song ``The Boxer'', where it goes on, ``I am just a poor boy though my story's seldom told.'' He ends by saying, ``A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.'' Many in this body are hearing what you want to hear and disregarding the rest. More money has gone out to transportation than was in the trust fund. More money in the last 12 or 15 years has gone out than was in the trust fund. So many people are disregarding what they do not want to hear. This bill presents and protects sand and gravel and cement. Then it says to those who are elderly with Alzheimer's disease, ``We're not going to protect you.'' ``You may have cancer and you may be worried about cancer research, but we're not going to protect you.'' ``You may be worried about education, but we're not going to protect you.'' ``We're going to protect sand and gravel and cement and tar and pitch.'' What about the 160 other trust funds? The Endeavor Teacher Trust Fund. ``Who cares about the teachers?'' The Radiation Exposure Trust Fund. ``We don't care if you've been involved in radiation. Who cares?'' The Civil Service Trust Fund. ``Who cares about that?'' And on and on and on. Look what the experts have said. Alan Greenspan, what he said about this and others will go into detail. Paul Volcker, what he said; Herb Stein, what he said; Michael Boskins, what he said; what all of the people have said. ``This is not a good idea.'' What have some of the groups and newspapers said? The Concord Coalition has said, ``Passage of this legislation would severely jeopardize the chances of balancing the Federal budget.'' The National Taxpayers Union has said, ``Placing these trust funds off-budget is nothing less than a ploy to increase spending.'' This Congress should not be involved in a ploy to increase spending. The Citizens Against Government Waste says, ``The Truth-in-Budgeting Act sounds great to the public, but it's simply a ruse to increase the $5 trillion debt.'' The Americans for Tax Reform is opposed to it, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Citizens for a Sound Economy. You name it and they are opposed to it. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, and you go on and on and they are opposed to this. This is a very bad bill. But for the main reason, for this side, I will not talk to this side but for our side, we have died and fought for a balanced budget. John Kasich, the Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Livingston, and others have done everything they can for a balanced budget. If we pass this, we will never have a balanced budget in your life in this Congress. You will never ever see a balanced budget in this Congress. There is no two ways about it. Because you are not going to have the guts to cut Alzheimer's, you are not going to want to go after Social Security, you are not going to want to cut the radiation fund, you are not going to want to go after defense, you are not going to want to go after crime, and therefore we will never ever have a balanced budget in our lifetime in this Congress. The American people should know that. This vote today will determine whether or not we will ever have a balanced budget. So in closing, let me talk about three words and maybe throw in one other word. What are we talking about today? We are talking about money. This town knows what money is. Members know what money is. We are talking about money. We are also talking about power. We are talking about power, raw power. And we are talking about something that this body says it does not like but it is sadly addicted to it, and that is pork. And lastly one other thing we are talking about. We are talking about fear. I sense there is fear in the body today. I sense in the hearts of some of the Members that I have talked to, there is fear. They really would rather not be where they are but yet there is a sense of fear. Let me just close with a quote from Robert Kennedy that has always meant a lot to me. It is from his Capetown speech in 1966 in Capetown, South Africa, when he was speaking to the students, and this is what he said. He talked about fear and men and women in leadership being timid. I will close with this. I quote from Robert Kennedy, Capetown, 1966. He said: Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality of those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change. I strongly urge the defeat of this so we can validate what the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] have done. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 842 and efforts to move transportation trust funds off-budget. This issue has certainly engendered extensive debate and controversy and even a coalition of special interests and lobbying groups formed to promote taking the trust funds off-budget using the slogan that we have to ``put trust back into the trust fund.'' If only we could have directed the enormous energy, time, and talent focused on this issue to address broader--and frankly, much more important--transportation issues. I believe the coalition efforts are misdirected. Trust is not at issue. If only we could have harnessed the zeal with which many have approached the trust fund issue and directed it to what I believe are greater issues in setting highway and transportation policy. If only we could debate the highway funding formulas now in place, which dole out highway funds to States using 1980 census figures. Why are we relying on decade-and-a-half old population figures? If there is unfairness in highway transportation today, the on-off budget trust fund issue isn't it. If only we could debate the whole issue of the Federal gasoline tax which many would argue should be turned back to the States which can better determine their individual needs, getting Uncle Sam out of the highway program. If only. But we are where we are and today we will vote on this issue which has been simmering for over a year. There are a few facts to keep in mind when considering this issue: First, while balances may remain in transportation trust funds, these funds are already obligated. The cash balances in the trust funds do not represent unspent gas taxes. The highway program is a reimbursable program--lines of credit are provided to State agencies to plan and construct highways. Then, 3 or 4 years later, the States seek reimbursements from the trust fund to pay those bills. That's why the cash balances do not represent a surplus. These balances are like your checking account balance after you have deposited your paycheck but before your home mortgage and car payment checks have cleared the bank. Like your home mortgage and car payment, commitments have already been made against the balances in the trust fund. In fact, commitments have already been made in excess of the current cash balance by over $30 billion. In other words, if we were to stop collecting the gas tax at the end of this year, the trust fund would have a deficit of over $30 billion. How would we deal with this deficit? I don't think we could. Not only that, highway funding has substantially exceeded trust fund tax receipts. In 12 of the past 15 years, highway trust fund spending exceeded tax revenues. That means that the amount of money the Government spends on transportation has exceeded the amount of money provided for transportation spending from dedicated trust fund taxes. But the trust fund is not the only source of transportation spending. Not only are transportation trust funds tapped for roads and bridges, the general fund is also being used to pay for transportation programs. How much money are we spending on transportation? According to the Congressional Research Service, in fiscal year 1995, general treasury funds provided more than $12 billion for transportation programs above and beyond funds provided from transportation trust funds. According to CRS, the general fund figure does not include Maritime Administration, Federal Maritime Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or Department of Defense spending on transportation programs, all of which also tap into the general fund to pay for transportation projects. Second, while transportation is vital to the economic well-being of our country, there are other issues vying for priority status. There are many important programs demanding critical funding. A third and possibly most important point: This issue is about reining in the Federal deficit and balancing the budget. Congress has had a very difficult time making the tough choices necessary to move toward a balanced budget. We still have a long way to go to meet our deficit reduction goals, and many more tough choices to make. How much more difficult will these choices be if we have to find an additional $30 billion in cuts--$30 billion--that's the additional cuts we will have to make if transportation trust funds are moved off- budget. If transportation spending gets special treatment, we will have to find $30 billion in cuts in discretionary spending in other parts of the budget. Are you prepared to cut Alzheimer's research funding? Cancer research? Research on other life threatening diseases? Veterans' health care? Head Start? Crime prevention? Education? Job training? Environmental protection and cleanup programs? National defense? These are the kinds of spending programs that would face cuts--potentially significant cuts--if transportation spending is treated as an entitlement subject to preferential budgetary treatment. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe Congress or the American people want to subject these critical programs to even further cuts. Nor do I believe Congress or the American people are prepared to accept additional taxes which would be necessary to pay for increased transportation spending if offsetting cuts elsewhere in the Federal budget are not made. Are you prepared to vote ``yes'' for a tax increase? When we are concerned about providing adequate funding to provide basic health care, education programs, protection for our country's natural resources, when we are working to provide safe streets and neighborhoods, and a sound and secure financial future for ourselves, our children and grandchildren, it is not the time to single out transportation and insulate it from these tough choices. I would also point out that there are some 160 other dedicated trust funds currently part of the unified budget. What if we move all of the trust funds off- budget and establish each and every one of them as an entitlement subject to preferential treatment. What makes these trust funds different from the transportation trust funds? Sand, gravel, asphalt, and concrete. Are these more important than the Black Lung trust fund? Are the transportation trust funds a higher national priority than the Endeavor Teacher Fellowship trust fund, the Radiation Exposure Compensation trust fund, the Civil Service Retirement trust fund, the Federal Employees Life Insurance trust fund, or the Rail Industry Pension fund? As important as transportation is, we have to balance transportation needs with all the other programs supported by the working men and women who are taxpayers. This country, all Americans, are in this together and we have to balance all the priorities and all the needs of all the people. Another point: H.R. 842 will erode the checks and balances between the authorizing committees and the tax and appropriations committees. This bill will provide one committee with extraordinary ability to obligate U.S. taxpayers to long-term spending commitments. As Members know, there is constant pressure from the legislative committees to spend more and more money on their particular programs. This makes sense but there must be built-in controls in the budget process to counteract this natural advocacy. Despite what the bill's proponents say, H.R. 842 will obviate the need for action by the Appropriations Committee and will eliminate annual controls in the budget process to set priorities. Make no mistake about it. By moving transportation trust funds off-budget, H.R. 842 virtually eliminates the checks and balances that the congressional committee structure now provides for transportation and the other Federal spending programs. Proponents of H.R. 842 say that not a penny will be spent without the approval of the Appropriations Committee. That sounds good, but in reality, this is false. If H.R. 842 does not change the role of the Appropriations Committee, why are we going through this debate? There has been a lot of rhetoric on both sides of this issue, so to get an objective view, I wrote to several dozen experts on the Federal budgetary process and transportation spending and asked their opinions on the status of transportation funds. I contacted economists, transportation, Government, and public policy analysts; professors; current and former officials of the General Accounting Office, Congressional Budget Office, and Office of Management and Budget; current and former members of the Federal Reserve Board; and current and former members of the President's Council of Economic Advisors. The response has been clear and unequivocal: These experts-- representing the entire spectrum of social, economic, budgetary, and transportation thinking and representing both Republican and Democratic administrations alike--say keep the transportation trust funds as part of the unified budget. Do not make the changes we are talking about today. Mr. Chairman, I brought with me copies of these experts' views and ask that they be submitted for the record. Their views--and their unanimity--leave little doubt. Moving transportation trust funds off- budget does not represent sound fiscal policy or budgetary treatment. I'd like to share a few thoughts from these experts. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, warns: [M]oving some spending categories off-budget would lead to fragmentation of the budgeting process and would detract from the unified budget as an indicator of the Government's fiscal operations and hence of the impact of the U.S. budget on credit markets and the economy. Moreover, it would weaken the ability of the Congress to prioritize and control spending effectively. Mr. Greenspan concludes that: [M]oving programs off-budget raises the risk that resource tradeoffs would become obscured and could engender cynicism in financial markets and the public at large about the commitment and ability of the Government to control Federal spending. Mr. Greenspan's views are echoed by Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, who states: [T]he present practice of including the transportation trust funds in the unified budget should be continued. I am reinforced in that conclusion by the fact that nothing in the unified budget prevents the Congress and the administration from reaching a decision to maintain highway spending (or any other spending) at a particular level it deems a priority matter. Trust fund accounting within the unified budget may * * * be helpful in reaching that decision. Herbert Stein, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and previously a member of the Presidential Council of Economic Advisors, also opposes moving trust funds off- budget, noting: I would not favor moving the trust funds off the budget. We want to have a comprehensive measure of the Federal Government's fiscal activities. One thought from Michael Boskin, currently a professor and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and previously a member of the Presidential Council of Economic Advisors. He said: I believe it is likely that moving one popular spending program primarily financed by earmarked revenues off-budget would lead to a stampede first of other trust funds off- budget and then all other spending programs seeking to be funded with earmarked revenue sources. This would quickly render sensible tax and budget policy impossible. Mr. Chairman, let me share jsut two more. G. William Miller endorses: I do not believe a case has been made for excluding the transportation trust funds. From my experience as Secretary of the Treasury and Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, I would strongly recommend that you retain the present treatment of the transportation trust funds so that there is no opportunity for losing accountability or setting precedents for further off-balance sheet structures. The Congressional Budget Office opposes moving transportation trust funds off-budget, too. According to James L. Blum, deputy director of CBO: [T]he Federal budget should be comprehensive. Setting selected programs aside, and looking at only the remainder, can distort budget decisionmaking. Giving the transportation trust funds a favored footing shifts the onus of deficit reduction to other programs that lack this protected status. Sound decisionmaking, in contrast, demands that spending and revenue proposals be evaluated on their merits and not on their budgetary status. I think these experts express the critical issues best. A unified budget--which includes transportation trust funds--is essential to maintaining accountability and control over the Federal budget and Government spending. Moreover, a unified budget is necessary to allow Congress to make the difficult decisions on our budget in the fairest possible way. Creating another entitlement that is off the table is not fair. Nor is it the way to get a balanced budget. The experts agree that H.R. 842 is bad legislation. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the chairman and ranking member of the House Budget Committee, the chairman and ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, and others oppose this legislation. Citizens for a Sound Economy, Concord Coalition, Heritage Foundation, National Taxpayers' Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Citizens Against Government Waste, and Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget are among the taxpayer watchdogs groups opposing H.R. 842. The Wall Street Journal, Washington, Post, New York Times, and the Journal of Commerce oppose H.R. 842. Mr. Chairman, when such diverse interests agree, it's surely time to take note. H.R. 842 will make balancing the budget nearly impossible. Every fiscal conservative in the Congress--including those Members who signed onto the bill before knowing its full effect on spending--should look carefully at what CBO, GAO, OMB, taxpayer watchdog groups and a unanimous chorus of economists say about H.R. 842. H.R. 842 is a bad bill. It files in the face of fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraint. It represents unsound public policy. It represents unfair attempts to bestow a preferential status upon one type of government spending at the expense of every other type of discretionary spending. It will either doom efforts to balance the Federal budget or it will force all other programs not granted sacrosanct status to absorb still more cuts to keep us on track to balance the budget. H.R. 842 would set transportation spending above all other types of domestic spending--above crime prevention, Head Start, veterans' medical care, education, and environmental programs. This Congress came to Washington to balance the budget, to clear the budget debate of smoke and mirrors. Today's vote on H.R. 842 isn't a fight about trust funds or promises. It isn't a fight between authorizing and appropriating committees. It is a vote over priorities. It is a vote to test our resolve, to see if we as Republicans and Democrats are serious about balancing the budget. If you are serious about cutting spending, vote ``no.'' If you are serious about balancing the budget, vote ``no.'' Enactment of H.R. 842 would break faith with sound economic policy and would cede control over the Federal budget and transportation spending to special interests. H.R. 842 should be defeated. The choice is clear--vote ``no'' on H.R. 842. Johns Hopkins University, Institute for Policy Studies, Baltimore, MD, September 21, 1995. Hon. Frank Wolf, Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Wolf: I am writing in response to your letter of August 23, 1995 to express my opposition to moving transportation trust funds off-budget. Thus, I would not support Congressman Shuster's legislation which would move four transportation trust funds off-budget. I think this would set a dangerous precedent which would have serious long-term implications for the nation's fiscal health as other user fee supported activities rush to be moved off- budget. I would like to respond directly to the three main points raised in your letter. First, I agree with those opposed to moving the transportation trust funds off-budget that a unified budget is essential to maintaining accountability and control over the federal budget and government's claim on private resources. The unified federal budget has received bipartisan support since 1969. It describes the aggregate economic activity and health of the federal government. Receipts and expenditures are detailed in one comprehensive package, providing decision makers and citizens valuable information on the government's activity and claim on national income. Fragmenting the budget presentation only obfuscates the federal role in the economy and is totally inconsistent with efforts to reinvent government and improve its legitimacy with voters and citizens. Second, the fact that these trust funds are financed from user fees is totally irrelevant to whether they should be moved off-budget. User fees are not synonymous with earmarked funds. User fees are proxies for prices which are necessary to provide suppliers of a service with information about the demand for specific services. Unfortunately, however, in the case of the transportation trust funds, user fees are generally poor price proxies because they do not accurately reflect the total cost of providing transportation services. In any event, you obtain the rationing affect of prices, irrespective of decisions about how to allocate the revenues generated from those user fees. From an economic efficiency perspective, the two are not linked. In addition, earmarking of revenues is generally not a desirable budgetary practice because it limits policy makers flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and priorities. Third, it is not clear how much more spending that nation needs on individual transportation modes. The demand for transportation services is a derived demand which depends on demographic, economic and international trends beyond the control of policy makers in the U.S. Policy makers need to understand those trends and the implications they have for the demand for transportation services in the U.S. The limited resources available for transportation purposes should then be allocated in a manner which addresses the nation's transportation needs as influenced by those trends. This may or may not be consistent with a policy of earmarking specific user fees for expenditures on the individual transportation mode that generated those revenues. In an era of serious budget constraints at all levels of government, it is critical that policy makers have the flexibility necessary to respond to the changing transportation needs of the country. Thus, Congress may want to investigate new ways of applying transportation trust fund revenues to meet these changing needs. For example, the nation's transit needs have changed considerably since 1956 when the Highway Trust Fund was initiated. Perhaps it is time for the federal government to consider a single transportation trust fund, with resources pooled from various user fees, so that funds could be distributed to meet America's diverse transportation needs in a more efficient manner. This is the approach taken by the Maryland State Department of Transportation and it is consistent with the increased flexibility and selectivity in the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act. Maybe the federal government has more to learn in this area from the experimentation taking place in the states. It is entirely appropriate in my view to rethink the model of transportation finance developed over the past fifty years. Proper investment in diverse transportation modes will yield greater productivity and long-term economic strength. Restructuring the federal budget process by moving transportation trust funds off-budget, however, is neither necessary, appropriate nor desirable. Sincerely, Michael Bell, Principal Research Scientist.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced legislation which would amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 [CERCLA] to exempt certain State and local redevelopment authorities such as civic boards or commissions, and fresh start users of facilities purchased from those boards or commissions, from liability under the Superfund law under certain limited circumstances. Under current law, civic boards or commissions charged with the job of developing plans for and encouraging the rehabilitation and reuse of Superfund sites are handicapped by certain Superfund liability provisions. These provisions could make such boards or commissions or their members liable for the costs of remediation of the site because of their involvement with developing plans to encourage future productive use of the site. This situation is unacceptable. Local governments should be able to develop and implement redevelopment plans without the fear of lawsuits seeking to join them as liable owners or operators. Mr. Speaker, Front Royal, VA, located in Warren County, which I am proud to represent, is a beautiful and historic area located in the scenic Shenandoah Valley of the 10th District. The region has a blemish; however, namely, the Avtex-FMC Superfund site. State and local officials and the citizens of Warren County have come together in a concerted effort to cooperate with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to clean up this contaminated site. Furthermore, like other communities that have Superfund sites, the citizens of Warren County and the town of Front Royal would like to move this site into productive economic use as soon as possible, thereby creating jobs and expanding the tax base. In fact, the Warren County Redevelopment Board [WCRB], a local civic board, is dedicated to facilitating the reuse of the site. However, the WCRB is limited in what it can do because liability under CERCLA is joint and several and adheres to owners or operators whether they actually contributed to the contamination or not. That means that a local governmental entity, which assumes ownership or control of some or all of the remediated property for the sole purpose of finding a new owner for the property, could be held liable for any further cleanup even though that entity did not engage in any response action at the facility and was not engaged in the generation of any hazardous substance disposed of at the facility. To further complicate the situation at the Avtex-FMC Superfund site, the EPA has proposed to subdivide putatively clean portions of the site and authorize the transfer of title to the clean sites to a new governmental, industrial, or business owner. In this manner some productive reuse of part of the property could be achieved long before the other polluted portion of the site has been remediated. Taking control of such a clean portion of the site is risky for the transferee because they could be liable for any further remediation required at the site. Thus, for example, a civic board taking ownership or control of land presently or formerly part of a Superfund site for nonprofit purposes merely with a view to conveying it to a new industrial or commercial entity could be subject to Superfund liability because, for a time, it was an owner or operator of the site, notwithstanding the fact that it never contributed to the contamination of the site. This is the problem facing the WCRB. Likewise, new fresh start users are deterred from taking over the cleaned site for fear of being liable under CERCLA's complicated liability system. Mr. Speaker, my legislation would allow a civic entity such as the Warren County Redevelopment Board to take title to portions of the site for the purpose of conveying ownership to an economic enterprise that will in turn be granted a fresh start, that is, to take and use the property free of potential liability for past pollution caused by the conduct of other parties at the site. It must be emphasized that the exemption provided by this legislation is strictly limited. Redevelopment authorities will only escape liability if such entity first, has not engaged in any response action at the facility, second, owns the facility or any portion thereof only on a temporary basis for the purpose of transferring the facility to a fresh start user, and third, has not engaged in the generation of any hazardous substance disposed of at such facility. Similarly, fresh start users will only be exempt if they acquired the facility from a redevelopment authority and has not engaged in first, any response action at the facility, second, disposal of any hazardous substance at the facility, or third, the generation of any hazardous substance disposed of at such facility. In short, redevelopment corporations and fresh start users that contaminate the property will not escape liability, but those that have nothing to do with the pollution would not be held liable. This legislation is a good Government measure which would give State and local governments needed flexibility in the transition of Superfund sites into productive uses. Moreover, shielding the fresh start user from liability for an act for which the new user has no blame is essential to attracting a new business user which would otherwise be deterred by the potential for liability under the current complicated liability structure. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a copy of this legislation and a letter from Fred Foster, president of the Warren County Redevelopment Board, in support of this bill immediately following my statement.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I rise in very strong support of the Smith amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], and his cosponors. The adoption of this amendment will help so many people who do not even know today that they are going to be in need of this amendment. So I take my hat off to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith]. There is tremendous presecution still going on. Anti-Semitism is alive and well all over the world, in the Middle East and in Russia. In fact, as it has been said, in Russia they are not privatizing anti- Semitism in Russia. The persecution of Christians in the Middle East, the persecution of Christians around the world, the persecution of Christians in China, the persecution of Christians in Vietnam, in fact, is the issue that this Congress will have to deal with in the next Congress. It is the persecution of Christians that is going on around the world; and this administration and this Congress, but for tonight, has been silent on this issue. As the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] said, this is what America is about, is a fundamental major moral issue, and quite frankly, in many respects the world is more dangerous today and more turbulent with more wars and more persecution going on than almost any other time, and perhaps this is needed more now than it was even back in the 1980's or any other time. So I want to commend the sponsor of the amendment. I hope and pray that this thing passes overwhelmingly because the number of people unfortunately, unfortunately that will need this amendment, will be more than we will ever realize, and I strongly urge, hopefully, almost a unanimous vote for the amendment.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill. There is precedent, I would tell the gentleman from California. This legislation builds upon an amendment that we adopted in a 1995 transportation appropriation bill where we provided $150,000 to defray the cost of these individuals one other time, and I think it was a unanimous vote here in the Congress. Second, it is the old saying, everything that goes around comes around, and what the Clinton administration did was to bludgeon these people. These were all career Federal employees, and one of them is a constituent of mine. Billy Dale does not have the beautiful people to go out and put a massive fundraiser on for him the way the President of the United States does. These people have been bludgeoned and their reputations have been ruined and financially they are in trouble. Even after Billy Dale was acquitted, the White House counsel came out and had to put a dagger in him again to say that maybe he was going to go for a plea bargain or something like that. Mr. Speaker, Billy Dale supported Clinton. Billy Dale was just a career person just trying to do his job, and I will say the only thing I agree with what the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], said is this one thing. There is too much in this town of filing suits and charges back and forth. It really began against Ed Meese. Ed Meese had to pay a horrible, horrible price. He eventually was paid for it, and it goes on in both parties. If the passage of this bill could be the beginning of a cease-fire for that, it would be appropriate. Let us not forget, and I want to make the record show, we may never know the truth. Billy Dale was acquitted by a jury of his peers. There is no evidence of gross mismanagement in the offices. There was no evidence of kickback with regard to Ultra Air. In fact, Ultra Air got a $5,000 benefit back from the IRS. They got a rebate from the IRS and the White House had to pay for the excise fees. Mr. Speaker, this, I think, makes whole not only from a financial point of view but I think from a moral point of view. The passage of this bill should send a message to everyone in this city and this country that these people were innocent, and also for their families and future generations know that they were basically innocent and what happened was absolutely wrong and that passing it can make it as right as we possibly can.