Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentleman has proposed an amendment in the nature of a substitute which differs in numerous ways from the bill, H.R. 2276, that was reported out. I am told the most significant of these changes involved the deletion of the off budget provisions. Is that accurate?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for that. The other thing, for purposes of clarity, would the gentleman briefly describe what are some of the other changes that were made from the bill?

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong, strong support of this bill. The bill has over 150 to 160 cosponsors. Let me begin by thanking Chairman Hyde personally for his work on this effort. I want to commend the gentleman. I appreciate the good work that he has done. I also want to thank Alan Coffey, who I have known for about 30 years, for his outstanding work; and lastly for Joe Gibson, your staff, and your other staff people who have done a superb job. This is important. There are now 48 States that have some form of gambling, whether it be lottery, casino gambling, and whatever the case may be. This is important to stop and take a close look at it. Now, there are going to be many other things, and I have spoken from the floor on this issue many, many times. I believe it is inappropriate, the spread of gambling that has taken place in the country. All you have to do is read the Washington Post series that was on Sunday and Monday and Tuesday and again tomorrow to see that from two States we have grown to roughly 48 States. Let me just say--it is not in my statement--for the record, powerful interests in this city have been hired to derail this bill. Prominent people in the Republican Party and prominent people in the Democratic Party from the K Street corridor have been hired to detract and derail and stop this bill. This bill is going to pass today by an overwhelming vote. There literally is very, very little opposition because it is a fair study that the American people want to see. What is the impact with regard to economic cannibalization, what impact does it have, and what is the impact with regard to corruption and political contributions? What is the impact to social aspects with regard to Gamblers Anonymous and things like this? So we are going to watch it, and I appreciate the efforts in the House. It is bipartisan. We have the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior]. I remember one day I was giving a 1-minute speech and the gentleman from Michigan got up and said, ``I want to be on that bill.'' We have come together in the best interest of this body. In closing, I appreciate the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], making this a priority item to bring up, and also the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] in not allowing some of these people that are--and I am reluctant to get into their names--who have been hired by the gambling interests to derail this bill. My closing comment is, I personally care about this almost as much as I care about a lot of things that we are taking. I am going to watch what happens on this bill. I am going to watch and see what takes place over in the Senate. What I would ask is those who have some problem with this bill, this bill ought to be allowed to pass, whereby we can set up a national commission, whether it be for 18 months or 2 years, whereby 9 men and women of decency and honesty who are not tied into any particular community can look at and examine this issue. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and his staff very, very much from the bottom of my heart. Mr. Speaker, as the original sponsor of the pending legislation, I rise in ardent support of H.R. 497, the Gambling Impact and Policy Commission Act and appreciate your scheduling this important legislation for floor consideration. Also, I would like to take a moment to recognize the diligent efforts of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and his able staff in guiding this legislation through the committee process. It was a pleasure working with Chairman Hyde in bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 497 is complicated. It would charge the National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission with the duty of making an objective, comprehensive, and impartial legal and factual assessment of gambling. Let me be clear. This legislation does not outlaw gambling. It does not tax gambling. It does not regulate gambling. It merely recognizes that gambling is spreading throughout the country like wildfire and it needs a hard look. This is our responsibility as Federal legislators to create a commission to bring together all the relevant data so that Governors, State legislators, and citizens can have the facts they need to make informed decisions. In the early 1970's Congress was concerned about problems related to gambling, and it established a commission similar to the one pending before the House today. Since the Commission on the Review of the National Policy Toward Gambling issued its 1976 report, gambling has greatly expanded, and it has grown in many ways that are contrary to the recommendations of that early report. In 1976 only two States had casino gambling. Today, every State but two have some form of legal gambling. According to U.S. News & World Report, people wagered $482 billion in 1994 on all forms of gambling, 85 percent of which took place in casinos in 27 States, most of them built in the past 5 years. As gambling proliferates in casinos, on riverboats, on Indian reservations and elsewhere, problems such as crime, political corruption, cannibalization of existing businesses, gambling addiction, family breakups, and suicide appear to be a growing and unfortunate consequence. It is time for Congress to take a comprehensive look at gambling and its associated problems. The gambling industry and its proponents argue that this study is not needed because this issue should be left up to the States. Well, Governors Lowry, Washington; Bush, Texas; Dean, Vermont; Carper, Delaware; Sundquist, Tennessee; Merrill, New Hampshire; Cayetano, Hawaii; Voinovich, Ohio; and Racicot, Montana disagree and support H.R. 497. I have heard from many State attorneys general and legislators who also support a national study of gambling. H.R. 497 has received wide editorial support as well from papers such as the Washington Post, Dallas Morning News, Los Angeles Times, Cincinnati Enquirer, Philadelphia Inquirer, Richmond-Times Dispatch, Capital Times, Madison, WS, Sacramento Bee, Chicago-Sun Times, Sun-Sentinel, Fort Lauderdale, FL. Also, this legislation is supported by the Christian Coalition, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America, American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and others. Recently, a coalition of 16 churches in America wrote the House and Senate leadership in support of this important legislation. Why do so many Governors, State attorneys general, State legislators, and citizens support H.R. 497? The reason is that there exists little credible or reliable information about gambling, and much of the information that does exist is produced by the gambling industry itself. Joseph Tydings and Peter Reuter, chairman and executive director respectively of Maryland's Joint Executive Legislative Task Force to Study Commercial Gambling, in an opinion article which ran in the Washington Post, wrote: The problem of legal casino gambling is a national one. . . . The problem cries out for attention from the President and Congress. Unfortunately, the casino industry has mobilized cash and lobbyists to prevent Federal action on the issue. Mr. Speaker, Congress can no longer turn a blind eye to the stories of poor mothers playing the slots with their children's lunch money or the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal article that indicated that more money was bet in casinos, $29.7 billion, in 1994 than was spent on all taxable sales, $27.6 billion, in the State. No longer can we ignore reports of teenagers so addicted to gambling that they prostitute their girlfriends to pay off their mob debts. And Congress will no longer be able to disregard accounts of Americans so distraught over their mounting gambling debts that their only perceived recourse is suicide. Mr. Speaker, America has begun to focus on the issue of gambling and its related problems. By passing H.R. 497 today, Congress will take a meaningful step toward bringing together all the relevant data so that Governors, State legislators, and citizens can have the facts they need to make informed decisions. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record four editorials in support of this legislation, as follows: [From the Saturday Oklahoman, Oct. 28, 1995] Study Could Help The battle over legalizing casino gambling in Oklahoma apparently will be fought at the polls instead of in the courtroom. Casino proponents have gathered 202,993 signatures on petitions to place the proposal on the ballot, the secretary of state says. A leading opponent says his group believes it would be useless to challenge the petition, based on past Supreme Court rulings. Instead, foes will focus on defeating the proposal, possibly at the time of the presidential primary on March 12. Casino boosters want to question on the November 1996 general election ballot. In either case, Oklahomans will have time to study the issue and should try to get all the information they can to help them make their decision. Of interest in this respect is an editorial in The News Journal of Wilmington, Del. It raises concerns about casinos due to open this year at Delaware racetracks. News stories in the paper estimate perhaps $400 million will be poured into 1,200 slot machines the first year. But the profit to the state would be only $8 million, about 2 percent of the wagering. The slot machines would return 90 percent or more to the bettors, with the rest going to track owners, purses for the horses, slot machine leases and state administrative costs, according to the paper. The editorial worries about the potential for abuse existing in all aspects: gambling contractors, casino employees, bettors, owners and operators. It notes that smaller operations like Delaware's are considered more susceptible to corruption than the big gambling meccas, like Atlantic City and Nevada. ``While much is said about the possible benefits from slots to racing and new jobs, businesses and revenue, how much is really known about the influence of organized crime, the potential for political corruption and the social toll on individuals and families?'' the paper asks. The editorial supports legislation pending in Congress to establish a National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission to help states evaluate the effects of legalized gambling. Such a study could also prove useful also for Oklahoma as it is confronted by efforts to expand gambling activities in the state.

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by seconding and commending my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] for moving this legislation. I want to bring the House up to speed on where we are on this so when this issue comes up, we can pass it very, very quickly. Back in 1989, Dr. Morgan was in jail for 2 years. We passed the legislation, that passed this House overwhelmingly, to have her released from jail. She and her daughter then went to New Zealand, and they are there wanting very desperately to return home. Why is it important that we allow this to take place? Dr. Morgan has had a very serious life-threatening operation in New Zealand and will need two additional operations. Second, Dr. Morgan's mother, who is 81 years old, who is in New Zealand taking care of both Dr. Morgan and the daughter, Ellen, is elderly; and the concern is, what if something were to happen to her, and with Dr. Morgan ill, what would happen with regard to Ellen? Third, Dr. Morgan's father, who is in his 80's, is in a hospital now and not very well, and we do not know what is going to happen with regard to that. Last, Dr. Morgan's husband, who lives in the Washington, DC area, can only visit her twice a year; and it is very difficult to commute to New Zealand, cost-wise and time-wise, so he visits her twice a year. Since this Congress has acted in the past on this issue, what we are going to be asking, through the leadership of Congressman Davis, is that we bring this bill up early and get it out so that Dr. Morgan and her daughter, Ellen, can return to the United States without fear of Judge Dixon, without fear of incarceration. It is the humanitarian thing to do; it is the right thing. All you have to think of is, if you have a daughter in this case, what would you do? It reminds me of the story years ago about a man without a country. These are people, frankly, without a country, that cannot get back into their own country. I would like to also submit for the Record, if I may, a copy of the letter from Dr. Morgan's husband, detailing the medical condition and the circumstances surrounding Dr. Morgan. I have pledged to the family that I am going to work with Congressman Davis, and we will put this bill on any bill that moves, any appropriations bill; and if we get to the end of the year and it has not passed, then as chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on Appropriations, I will put this bill in the transportation appropriations bill so that it will be passed and be signed. Our goal is that Dr. Morgan and her daughter, Ellen and her mom will be allowed to return to the United States early this year, hopefully before the springtime is over. So in closing, when Members have the opportunity to vote on this, we would hope for unanimous consent and complete support, and I want to commend my colleague, Mr. Davis, for taking the leadership to allow Dr. Morgan and Ellen Morgan and Mr. Morgan's mom to return to the United States.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is right. Many times all we hear about on both sides are economic issues. We have passion for them. We should also have passion and compassion for people who are in a situation like this, and through the Davis bill, this family will be able to be reunited and come back to the United States, hopefully before, it would be nice, before the end of springtime. A copy of the letter mentioned earlier follows: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, January 23, 1996. Hon. Tom Davis, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Frank R. Wolf, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressmen Davis and Wolf: As you requested, I provide the following update concerning my step-daughter, Ellen Morgan, and my wife, Dr. Elizabeth Morgan, based on my visit with them in New Zealand from December 21 to January 18. Ellen talked of feeling rejected from still being in exile, as she has been since 1987; because of the inaction so far on the bill to allow her safe return, she fears abandonment. The high point of her life, she said, was having Congressman Davis read her letter into the record at the hearing on August 4, 1995. She said this was the first time anyone in authority ever listened to her. After the hearing, however, Ellen suffered dashed hopes as control of her future seemed to slide back to the hands of Judge Dixon after Ellen's father moved to modify Judge Dixon's orders. As you may know, contrary to his promise to the subcommittee, in his motion to Judge Dixon Dr. Foretich did not withdraw his requests for custody and visitation, but asked Judge Dixon to remove custody from Dr. Morgan and to order visitation. To my knowledge, after holding a hearing in December, Judge Dixon has not ruled on Dr. Foretich's motion. Nor has he ever ruled on Dr. Morgan's motions of 1987 and 1988, for example to reconsider his visitation orders and admit the evidence of the abuse of Ellen's half-sister. With respect to Dr. Morgan, I am sorry to report that she has suffered a health calamity. After months of increasing frustration, including watching Ellen's demoralization, Elizabeth developed serious ulceration throughout her large intestines. In early January, following our move to Auckland, Dr. Morgan collapsed, was hospitalized and underwent major surgery. Her entire colon was removed (colectomy) and she also had an ileostomy, as a result of which she now has to wear a bag. Fortunately, she is now home and, so far, convalescing well. Nevertheless, she faces two more operations, attempting to repair her digestive system. She must also regain the weight and energy she lost during the month she was unable to eat or drink, and from the surgery itself. It is no exaggeration to say that she could have died prior to the operation because of what her doctors described as ``toxic mega colon.'' Although lab tests results are still awaited, the New Zealand doctors assure me that they believe grave danger has passed. In turn, I believe that she received good care in Auckland Hospital even though a week passed between her emerging admission and her emergency surgery. While I have confidence in her New Zealand doctors, I remain concerned because, in my view, nowhere in the world can one receive the quality of medical care for serious conditions that is available here in the United States. Another factor which I believe contributed to Ellen's discouragement and Elizabeth's health crisis was Dr. Foretich's escalating efforts throughout 1995 to gag Ellen. I am informed that he now asks the New Zealand Court to prohibit Ellen from talking with any Member of Congress, staffer, private lawyer, or journalist without his prior review, a court hearing on his objections and the Court's agreement. It is my understanding from Dr. Morgan's New Zealand lawyer that pending decision, Ellen is prohibited from discussing anything about her past with such officials and persons. Therefore, in contrast to last year when, at his request, she wrote freely to Congressman Davis and spoke to him on the phone, today she may be barred from doing so. From Ellen's discussions with me, I know how upset she feels over the present success of her father in silencing her while he continues to talk publicly. It aggravates her growing frustration with her father's success so long keeping her away from home, family and country. Although the New Zealand Court has fully protected Ellen from contact with Dr. Foretich and has thus protected her physically, her emotional well-being has not been as successfully assured. For example, in the New Zealand Court, since January 1995, Dr. Foretich has blocked Ellen from being deposed in a lawsuit he himself brought against ABC Television for the documentary movie about Ellen and Elizabeth. This has enraged Ellen since she wishes to be heard in this sealed deposition about what happened to her and to contradict Dr. Foretich's own deposition denying everything. Indeed, the court-appointed psychiatrist in New Zealand, I understand, has opined that since Ellen herself wants to testify, such an opportunity to be heard may further heal Ellen from the trauma of her earlier years. My report would not be complete without briefly mentioning Ellen's grandparents, Dr. William J. and Antonia Morgan, who hid and thus protected her from 1987 when the Washington Family Court refused protection until 1990 when the New Zealand Family Court gave protection. Bill is seriously ill in Suburban Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland, suffering from congestive heart failure and kidney failure. Only last week Ellen told me how horrified she feels that if her grandfather were to die, she would be prevented from attending his funeral. She is upset enough about missing the May, 1996 wedding of her step-sister, Margaret Michel, but expressed herself as finding the possibility of missing a family funeral intolerable. Antonia, now 81 and frail, remains in New Zealand helping my wife and Ellen to have as normal a family life as the courts have allowed. Understandably, however, Antonia finds it anguishing that in her twilight years family reunification for her as for everyone else seems forever deferred and delayed. Her other children and grandchildren and husband, of course, are here. Contrary to what some people may assume, the difficulties of life in exile for all three of the women in my New Zealand family grow, now diminish, while each passing year. The recent setbacks of the gagging of Ellen and her resulting despondency and the ulcerative colitis that nearly killed Elizabeth only exacerbate those difficulties. In addition, Ellen's teenage years are not helped by being deprived of family life with her step-father. As it is, she sees me only two months each year. My long-suffering family thus suffers still--and, in the ways described above, even worse. I cannot express how grateful I am that, in the midst of the issues you and your colleagues face, you two Congressmen have not forgotten the plight of a mother and daughter left in legal limbo and thus trapped in endless exile. Sincerely, Paul R. Michel.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier, and I just want to take a little time after the 1-minute to really urge Members to get a copy of the Washington Post piece by Walter Reich called, ``Holocaust: The China Parallel.'' The writer is a physician, the director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. He points out that what is taking place in China is parallel to the Holocaust that took place in some respects in Nazi Germany. Now, this Congress last year was going to do something with regard to China. It passed a bill with regard to putting some restrictions on China and dealing with Radio Free China. Frankly, nothing has happened to it. This year the Congress I think is obligated on both sides of the aisle to do something to deal with the issues of religious persecution and what is taking place in China. As a couple of examples, and I will submit them for the Record, Freedom House has documented 200 Christian Leaders in prison since April 1, 1995. A Christian ministry in the United States had delegates recently to visit a house church during a recent visit to China. The leaders in these churches have to be itinerant in their own country. They cannot meet with their own families. They have no permanent home. Many leaders have been jailed, beaten, fined, tortured, or sent to labor or reeducation camps for their religious beliefs. Quite frankly, I wish that Ronald Reagan were back in the White House whereby we could have somebody who could come out and stand up and raise these issues. Frankly, since the Berlin Wall has fallen and since Ronald Reagan has left the White House, neither the administration, the Bush administration, nor the Clinton administration, nor Republican Congresses or Democratic Congresses, have done anything with regard to human rights in China and many of the other countries. Quite frankly, the business of the Clinton administration is business. It is not human rights. They do not care if Catholic priests are being persecuted and bishops are going to jail. They don't care if evangelical ministers are being put in prison. They don't care if Buddhists are being put in prison. Mr. Speaker, does the Congress care? We know that Clinton does not care. We know that Secretary Christopher does not care, because we have seen no action out of the State Department. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the sound of silence that has come from the Clinton administration on religious persecution is deafening. Mr. Speaker, to be fair, the sound of silence coming from the Republican Congress on this issue is deafening. Now, all one had to do was watch ``60 Minutes'' Sunday night where they showed Chinese children tied to beds, mainly female children, and they starved them to death, similar to what the Nazis did before World War II. Had that happened in the 1980's, had Ronald Reagan been able to see that, had Senator Jackson of Jackson-Vanick been able to see it, leaders who have fought on both sides of the aisle for human rights, this Congress would have passed a resolution on it. This Congress would have debated this issue. But frankly, Mr. Speaker, this Congress, along with the Clinton administration, has done absolutely nothing. It would be my hope and prayer that both parties would have a plank in their platform this year for religious freedom from dissidents around the world, for persecution of all religious beliefs, whether they be Buddhist or Christian or Jews. This issue should be on the forefront of the burner of both political parties. As I again urge my colleagues after they read the article in today's Washington Post, I will close with what the author said. He said, ``If the Human Rights Watch report can be verified by international inspections, the parallels between the Chinese orphanages and the Nazi programs that killed disabled children are alarming. These parallels remind us that human beings, including physicians and other caregivers, are extraordinarily vulnerable to inhuman acts and extraordinarily capable for justifying their behavior on what they see as rational grounds. And they remind us that countries in which democratic institutions are forcibly forbidden and human rights systematically quashed are ones in which human life becomes, quite simply, expendable.'' This issue is not going to go away. If the Clinton administration does not deal with it, I hope and pray that at least this Republican Congress will deal with it. China Steps Up Religious Repression December 22, 1995.--The Chinese government is subjecting unauthorized Catholic and Protestant groups to intensifying harassment and persecution as social tensions in the country increase, says Human Rights Watch/Asia in ``China: Religious Persecution Persists,'' released today. ``During the last two years, the Chinese government broadened its drive to crush all forms of dissent. In addition to targeting prominent dissidents such as Wei Jingsheng, who last week was sentenced to fourteen years in prison, all religious believers, and especially Christians, are seen as potential security risks,'' said Mickey Spiegel, research consultant for Human Rights Watch/Asia. Chinese authorities have issued new directives requiring all congregations to register with religious authorities, stepped up pressure on evangelists, and tightened controls on contact with foreigners and on distribution of religious materials. Individuals suspected of linking religion to political activity have received the harshest treatment. The extensive crackdown on Protestants and Catholics violates both the Chinese constitution and freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As Communist ideology has lost public support, interest in religion, particularly evangelical Protestantism, has spread rapidly in China. But since the early 1990s, a new development has emerged which the country's leaders consider even more ``subversive'': a growing alliance between underground Christian churches and pro-democracy activists, many of whom have converted to Christianity in recent years. Dissident groups such as the League for the Protection of the Rights of Working People (LPRWP), some of whose members are Protestants, have been particularly targeted for official repression, with President Jiang Zemin describing the LPRWP as ``the most counterrevolutionary organization in China since 1949.'' After witnessing the role of the Catholic Church in undermining Communist power in Eastern Europe, the authorities have renewed their determination to eradicate all autonomous religious activity in China. For example, Xiao Biguang, a thirty-three-year-old former professor of literature at Beijing University, was one of the main drafters of the charter for the LPRWP. He was arrested on April 12, 1994, and put on trial this past April 1995 on criminal charges including ``swindling'' and creating a ``negative atmosphere'' among his students at a theological seminary. As of mid-December 1995, he had not been sentenced and was still being held in a Ministry of State Security lockup in Beijing. Meanwhile, Xiao's wife, Gou Qinghui, has been continually harassed, subjected to periodic surveillance, and forbidden to continue seminary teaching or to meet with co-religionists at home. She has been detained at least four times in May 1994 and May 1995. The most recent crackdown began in January 1994, when Premier Li Peng signed new regulations tightening the existing requirement that all church groups in China register with the state-controlled Religious Affairs Bureau. This policy, which violates international standards on freedom of expression and association, has forced Christians and other religious believers to choose between registering their congregations lawfully, which often exposes their services to intrusive surveillance and official control, or continuing to operate underground, thereby risking fines, arrests, and even prison terms. The January 1994 regulations also reiterate China's ban on proselytizing and other public religious activities by foreigners, depriving Chinese believers of their right to associate with their co-religionists from overseas. Local authorities seeking to suppress unauthorized church groups have often violated China's own laws and regulations, acting even more brutally than the national religious policy allows. Christians in many rural areas are routinely and often repeatedly harassed through arbitrary detentions, beatings, and confiscations of property. Those considered ``ringleaders,'' especially Protestant preachers with a large popular following, are at risk of arrest and imprisonment. In one case, Huang Fangxin, a twenty-nine-year old seminarian from Yongkang County, Zhejiang Province, was sentenced without trial to three years of ``re-education through labor'' in April 1994, after organizing a group of young people from the country into a ``gospel team'' to recruit new members to the local church. Several of his followers have since faced further harassment, including mandatory ``study classes'' at which they are lectured, fined, and sometimes physically abused. Similar abuses against underground Protestant groups, including raids on churches and mass arrests, have been reported throughout China, particularly in Henan and Anhui provinces where the evangelical movement is especially strong. Roman Catholic bishops who maintain ties to the Vatican have also faced harassment and arbitrary detention. Foreigners suspected of promoting Christianity among Chinese citizens have become a major target of the new crackdown, especially those caught bringing Bibles and other religious literature into the country illegally. During the Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in September 1995, foreign participants were warned to bring in no religious materials other than those for personal use. Leaders of Protestant ``house churches'' in Beijing were warned to avoid contact with conference delegates arriving from overseas, and one Catholic leader. Bishop Jia Zhiguo, was removed from his home and detained until the day after the conference ended. The presence of foreigners was in part responsible for a mass arrest in Hubei Province on April 18, 1995, in which security officials, armed with electric batons, broke up a theological training class for new pastors and arrested at least sixty-seven Chinese and three overseas Protestants. The detainees were interrogated, some of them were badly beaten, and some of the men had their heads shaved. Human Rights Watch calls on the Chinese authorities to lift all official controls on religious activities, including the compulsory registration of church groups, and to thoroughly investigate all reports of illegal mistreatment of religious believers, including beatings, ill-treatment, and torture. All those held for participating in religious activities outside the official churches should be unconditionally released, including those convicted of violating state security laws or the laws on counterrevolution. Human Rights Watch also urges the international community to exert pressure on the Chinese government to allow greater religious freedom. The U.S., European Union, Japan, and other governments should sponsor and vigorously promote a resolution censuring China at the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva next March. Among other abuses, the measure should specifically call for an end to religious repression. In addition, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance should be invited to make a second visit to China early in 1996, following his previous visit to Beijing and Tibet in November 1994; he should seek to visit those Chinese provinces where the persecution of Christians is most severe. Human Rights Watch/Asia urges delegations of parliamentarians and trade delegations to China to make specific inquiries about cases of religious activists still in custody and those detained, ill-treated then released. They should call for the immediate repeal of all official restrictions on free expression of religious belief and practice. Copies of the report are available from the Publications Department, Human Rights Watch, 485 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10017 for $6.00 (domestic) and $7.50 (international). human rights watch/asia Human Rights Watch is a nongovernmental organization established in 1978 to monitor and promote the observance of internationally recognized human rights in Africa, the Americas, Asia, the Middle East and among the signatories of the Helsinki accords. It is supported by contributions from private individuals and foundations worldwide. It accepts no government funds, directly or indirectly. The staff includes Kenneth Roth, executive director; Cynthia Brown, program director; Holly J. Burkhalter, advocacy director; Robert Kimzey, publications director; Jeri Laber, special advisor; Gara LaMarche, associate director; Lotte Leicht, Brussels office director; Juan Mendez, general counsel; Susan Osnos, communications director; Jerera Rone, counsel; Joanna Weschler, United Nations representative; and Derrick Wong, finance and administration director. Robert L. Bernstein is the chair of the board and Adrian W. DeWind is vice chair. Its Asia division was established in 1985 to monitor and promote the observance of internationally recognized human rights in Asia. Sidney Jones is the executive director; Mike Jendrzejczyk is the Washington director; Robert Munro is the Hong Kong director; Jeannine Guthrie is NGO Liaison; Dinah PoKempner is Counsel; Patricia Gossman and Zunetta Liddell are research associates; Joyce Wan and Shu-Ju Ada Cheng are Henry R. Luce Fellows; Diana Tai-Feng Cheng and Paul Lall are associates; Mickey Spiegel is a research consultant. Andrew J. Nathan is chair of the advisory committee and Orville Schell is vice chair.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, every Member should read the editorial in the Washington Post called ``Holocaust: The China Parallel.'' It is by Walter Reich, the director of the Holocaust Museum and the chairman of the American Psychiatric Association's Committee on Human Rights. What does he say? According to the reports provided by Human Rights Watch, the starved children in the Chinese orphanages look very much like the starved children in the German ``Children's Specialty Institutions''; the Chinese institutions, too, administer sedatives to some children selected for death; they, too, use false diagnoses as coverups; they too, cremate the remains of starved children; and they, too, employ physicians, many of whom probably tell themselves that the children dying under their care would have died anyway, and in any case are useless eaters in a country challenged by scarce resources. The parallels between the Chinese orphanages and the Nazi programs to kill disabled children are alarming. These parallels remind us that human beings, including physicians and other caregivers, are extraordinarily vulnerable to inhuman acts and extraordinarily capable of justifying their behavior on what they see as rational grounds. And they remind us that countries in which democratic institutions are forcibly forbidden and human rights systematically quashed are ones in which human life becomes, quite simply, expendable. Finally, somebody has said something about the similarities between the Holocaust and the activities of the Chinese Government. Now, I know the Clinton administration will not do anything. But will the Congress do anything? This Congress has done nothing. The business of this Congress is business. You have watched priests put in jail in China; you have watched bishops be put in jail in China; you have watched Harry Wu's enslavement. Now you watch 60 Minutes and orphans being killed, and we know the Clinton administration has done nothing, but this Congress, this Congress, where we all have the right to speak out, we have done nothing.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, what we did today was good and appropriate. It kept the commitment and the word that the leadership and others in Congress made, and that was that Federal employees would not lose any salary, and they have not lost any salary and they will return to work and that will be good. I thank the Members on both sides of the aisle that brought that about. We thank the leadership because it is very, very positive. One other thing I want to announce, and hopefully we can work together on this, when we come back we will be bringing up legislation which will set up a national commission to investigate the impact that gambling is having in the country. Twenty years ago only two States had gambling. Now, 48 States have some sort of gambling and 24 have riverboat and casino gambling. Mr. Speaker, it will be a national commission of nine men and women who have no bias on this issue, who will look to see what the impact of gambling has been on the country. Has it been good or bad? Has there been corruption involved in it? Has there been involvement with regard to political contributions? What has the impact been on other businesses? What has the impact been on addiction? Hopefully, with what we did in the bipartisan manner today putting Federal employees back to work and paying them, we will pass this bill shortly when we come back.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, this past New Year's Eve, America lost a true patriot. Gen. Dan Graham, the father of SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative, passed away that day. I want to share with our colleagues a column in today's Washington Times by Paul Weyrich which tells about the life of Dan Graham and his mission for a strong defense to protect the national security of the United States. The Mission of a True Patriot (By Paul M. Weyrich) About six weeks ago, I received a newly published book with a personal note from the author hoping that I would find it useful. I read through the book and dropped the author a note suggesting that he appear on my program, ``Direct Line,'' to discuss the book. I received no reply and yesterday I found out why. Gen. Dan Graham passed away on New Year's eve. None of his friends, even those who had worked closely with him over the years, knew just how critically ill Gen. Graham was in recent weeks. We had known for some time that he was suffering from cancer and for the past few months that he was unlikely to recover. But Dan Graham was never one to whine or complain. In fact, the only time I ever saw Dan Graham truly upset was at the funeral of his first wife, to whom he had been married most of his adult lifetime, and who was the mother of their two sons and five daughters. This nation owes Gen. Graham a great debt of gratitude. I had gotten to know Gen. Graham more than 20 years ago. He was chief of Defense Intelligence during the Ford administration. The Democratic Senate, then controlled by nearly a two-thirds margin, forced him into premature retirement because he wasn't politically correct on Vietnam. He was never bitter, even though he had every reason to be. He continued his work for a strong defense on the outside, just as he had done so ably from the inside for more than 30 years in the Army. It was in the early 1980s that Gen. Graham began to talk about new breakthroughs in technology. The breakthroughs would permit an effective missile defense system to be constructed to defend this country from a massive attack from the Soviet Union or from a surprise attack from some rogue leader. We were going to build a primitive version of such a system in the early 1970s, but President Nixon bargained that right away. I know almost nothing about technology and certainly had no knowledge about this sort of development, but Gen. Graham gave me the full briefing anyway and then asked for my help to find a home for his project, called ``High Frontier.'' I called Ed Feulner, the president of the Heritage Foundation, and explained that Gen. Graham was assembling a group of scientific experts who intended to advocate a new type of missile defense system. Ed quickly agreed that Heritage would welcome the project as part of its public policy activities, and thus was born what we now call SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative. Gen. Graham soon found a willing listener in one President Ronald Reagan, who in 1983 delivered a nationwide televised address that shook the leaders of the Kremlin. Mr. Reagan committed the United States to research and deploy a defensive missile system. Critics, in an effort to kill the project, quickly labeled it ``Star Wars.'' But given the popularity of George Lucas' trilogy, that label only enhanced it. Despite near crippling opposition from the Democratic Congress, SDI made significant advantages under the Reagan administration, to the point where Soviet leaders were convinced that the United States was serious about deploying it. Some Soviet military leaders with whom I spoke early in this decade said that this shift in U.S. strategy was a contributing factor to the demise of the Soviet Union. SDI received only lip service from President Bush, despite the fact that Russian President Boris Yeltsin, in his first appearance as the leader of that nation, urged the United States and Russia to work together to develop SDI for the good of all mankind. Bush advisors were not enthusiastic about SDI because deployment would have required a change in the so-called MAD strategy, Mutual Assured Destruction, to which the United States has clung for decades. Still, SDI limped along and made modest progress. When Bill Clinton took office, he all but killed SDI. The Republican controlled Congress, just a few weeks ago, passed a defense authorization bill that would have required deployment of a modified missile defense system by the year 2000. That was Gen. Graham's finest hour and thank God he lived to see it. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed the bill precisely because he said it would have required the construction of that missile defense system, which he did not want. So despite a decade and a half of work by Gen. Graham, this country remains unprotected from a missile attack. Still, the issue won't go away. There would have been no issue at all, and the technology developments which have resulted in drastically reducing the cost of an SDI system would not have occurred at all, but for the dogged determination of Daniel Graham. In literally thousands of meetings, public and private, Gen. Graham pushed this idea. It was Gen. Graham who convened a special meeting at my office to encourage opposition to John Tower as Secretary of Defense under then President-elect Bush on the grounds that Sen. Tower was an opponent of SDI. In Secretary Dick Cheney, Graham found someone much more to his liking. All of this aside, Dan Graham was a decent, religious, family man who had an endearing sense of humor and was terrific at getting people, even opponents, to work together. He could be tough as nails if he opposed you on policy grounds, but Dan Graham was never mean spirited. He always handled opposition with great dignity, which was part of his military training. This nation owes Dan Graham a great deal. And one day soon, we will have a system to protect us against some fanatic or deranged leader who wants to blow up part of America to make a point. When that day comes, and it almost came a few weeks ago, it will be because of the good work of this one time deputy director of the CIA. All of us who love America will miss this true patriot.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I understand there is a resolution to allow the Congress to recess until January 23. I personally think we should reopen the Government, but under no circumstances should the Congress leave town while the Government is shut down. The soldiers in Bosnia are not leaving Bosnia. And do not clap, because I do not agree with you on the other side of the aisle, too. You all have been partisan and politicizing this place. The soldiers in Bosnia are not leaving. The cancer researchers are not leaving. The FBI agents are not leaving. I personally believe, and we all only answer to our constituents and to our conscience, but I believe it would disgrace the Congress for us to leave while the Government is shut down. One other thing to my side, this is not a leadership vote. This is a conscience vote. And my conscience is not for sale. Congress should not leave while the Government is shut down. You all ought to stop being so partisan, because when we can get together in the spirit of reconciliation, we can solve these problems. Each side eggs the other side on and nothing gets done.

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I will not object, but I just wanted to have some clarification. I would ask the gentleman, does this resolution that we are bringing up tonight have anything to do with the resolution that was just passed in the Committee on Rules, which gives the Speaker or the Chair the ability to recess subject to the call until January 23? Because if it does, I want to make sure that my objection is heard loud and clear, and Members ought to know that this might have something to do with that. Does this have anything to do with the resolution that was passed in the Committee on Rules today that deals with giving the Speaker the right to recess subject to the call of the Chair until January 23, which would be a very bad thing to do?

Mr. WOLF. I will not object, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to be sure, because when the resolution comes up on the floor, if it ever comes up in this House to vote on the issue of whether or not we adjourn or recess, I not only will vote against it, I will speak against it, and I will work against it. Since this does not deal with that, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this, too. I will have more to say a little later about the whole issue, but this would get Federal employees back, and when we think in terms of Federal employees, I think it is important to think in terms of the mission, perhaps; the FBI agent, that if everyone here had a husband or a wife or a son or a daughter kidnaped today, the first person you would call would not be your local police, it would be the FBI, or a Federal employee. Members claim that they are concerned about drugs in the schools and drugs coming out of Mexico and places like that, but the people that we look to to keep drugs out of the country are the DEA agents, all Federal employees. My mom and dad both died of cancer. Cancer runs in my family. The cancer researcher at NIH is a Federal employee. I think we have gotten so wrapped up, focusing on the words ``Federal employee,'' and forgetting the individual mission. Who in the country wants to not have cancer researchers working at NIH? Who does not want the DEA to be active and involved to stop drugs coming in? Who does not want the FBI to be on the job and working? I heard the Chaplain talk about mercy and justice. I think this is an opportunity for mercy and justice. This resolution and the next resolution would get us on the way. The last thing I want to say as a Republican and as a conservative Republican, and I am very proud to be called a conservative Republican, and I send my entire voting record out to every household in my district, there is nothing inconsistent, there is nothing inconsistent with being a strong supporter of a balanced budget in 7 years, scored by the CBO, and putting Federal employees back to work. There is nothing, nothing inconsistent. The day people believe there is an inconsistency there, then I think the thinking in this country has gone astray. To put an FBI agent back, a cancer researcher back, a DEA researcher back, a Social Security worker back is not inconsistent. I am committed and have voted to see that we bring a balanced budget in, scored by the CBO, and that in the process, we do not do the other thing. As we hear, the end never justifies the means. The ends never, never justify the means.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, let me try to bring some clarity, to this so everyone understands what we are talking about. I would have supported the other one gladly. I also support this one and hopefully people on the other side, they supported Senator Dole's gladly, so hopefully they will then support this, this gladly. This process of the expedited procedure is not all unusual process. It is actually in the budget rules now, so, I mean, it really is not any different except for the hourly thing. Third, I think it is important for this reason, I serve on the Committee on Appropriations, and the Labor-HEW bill has been tied up over in the Senate for well over, I think, 5 or 6 weeks. It has been debated and moved and changed and filibustered whereby it cannot even come up. So this process brings it up, and it is an expedited process. It is a good procedure. It gives the Senate time, the same way they would under the normal budget things. The other thing is it gets us to a balanced budget. Both sides say they want a balanced budget. It gets us there. It gets us to a balanced budget in 7 years. It gets us to a balanced budget scored by CBO, and another thing, in a bipartisan nature, the President supports this. I watched the news last night, and I do not know if it was the 10 o'clock news or 11 o'clock news, that focused in on the President. The President said he supported this process, he supported the expedited procedure. Senator Dole has been supportive of theirs, hopefully they will be supportive of this. And Tom Daschle, who is a good Member of the Senate, served here in the House, has a lot of Federal employees in his district, last night on one of the shows they focused in on Mount Rushmore which I believe is in his area; I believe this would be good for the body. I think it would be good for the Congress. I think it would be good for Federal employees. But perhaps more importantly than anything, this expedited procedure process in moving this along would be good for the country. That is what we are here for, to do the best interests of the country. Had the other one been OK, fine. I even voted for it on the rollcall we did a week ago. I was one of three Republicans that did this. That process is there. This process is here. Let us pass this today so the Senate will have the opportunity, and hopefully take the opportunity, to work it and pass it whereby Federal employees can come back early next week.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent the House as a commissioner on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and want to bring to the attention of our colleagues the remarks by the Honorable Gerald R. Ford, 38th President of the United States, at Helsinki, Finland, on August 1, 1995, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Thank you for your kind invitation to take part in this historic event whereby we mark the 20th Anniversary of the Helsinki Accords. The title for my remarks today--``Helsinki: The Unfinished Agenda.'' Before the formal signing of the Helsinki Accord, I warned the world and the other heads of state gathered here that ``Peace is not a piece of paper . . . peace is a process.'' Twenty years later, the process we began here by signing that piece of paper has given us a super power peace--the Cold War is history. Except for the stubborn ethnic conflict in the Balkans which was already ancient when I was born, the course of history has changed because here in Helsinki we recognized certain basic rights to which all human individuals are entitled. In 1975 there was considerable opposition in the United States to my participation in the Helsinki meeting. For example, The Wall Street Journal advised in its July 23, 1975, editorial: ``Jerry--Don't Go,'' while other American newspapers were equally critical. Some skeptics labeled the Accord--The Betrayal of Eastern Europe. Basket III, which included fundamental human rights language was either ignored by most of the media or criticized as long on rhetoric, but short on substance. Likewise, two of our most influential and respected Senators, one a Democrat and one a Republican, condemned Basket III of the Accord. Furthermore, many ethnic groups in the United States, especially those of Baltic heritage, were strongly opposed to portions of the Accord because they believed it legitimized the borders drawn by the Warsaw Pact. The United States and the West German government met this criticism by insisting Basket II language include the following: ``They, (the signers) consider that their frontiers can be changed, in accordance with international law, by peaceful means and by agreement.'' The wholesale political upheaval behind the Iron Curtain that took place fifteen years later made these differences in 1975--academic, especially Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The 1975 Helsinki Accord did not freeze the 1945 borders of Europe; it freed them. The thirty-five leaders of nations on both sides of the Iron Curtain that signed the Final Act of the Helsinki Accord, according to one historian, ``Set in motion a chain of events that helped change history.'' Each of us, including Mr. Brezhnev, who signed the Final Act agreed to a commitment of principle to recognize the existence of certain basic human rights to which all individuals are entitled. It is ironic that these accords are often described as the ``Final Act'' when, in fact, they were really just the beginning of an historic process. Today, this process has a past, as well as a present and a future--an unfinished agenda. Twenty years ago when I spoke here, my country was beginning the bicentennial observance of our Declaration of Independence. I drew on the inspiration of that great moment in our history for the remarks I made to the Conference in this Finnish Capital. I likened the Helsinki Accords to the Declaration of Independence because I realized that, as with our revolution, it is sacrifice and the indomitable human spirit that truly separate ordinary moments in history from those that are extraordinary. And today, as we reflect on the past twenty years of achievement, we see that it has been the sacrifice and the indomitable human spirit of great people throughout the world that have made the signing of the Helsinki Accords a truly extraordinary moment in modern history. I well remember the impressive ceremony in Finlandia House where signatures were affixed to a 100 page, 30,000 word joint declaration. In the limelight, representing the thirty- five nations, were French President Valerie Giscard d'Estaing, West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito, Rumanian President Nicolae Ceausescu, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, East Germany's Erich Honechor, our host, President Kekkonen and others. On the day we signed the Accords, appropriate speeches were made by each nation's representative. On behalf of the United States I chose to emphasize the Final Act's commitment to human rights. Let me quote from my speech: ``The documents produced here affirm the most fundamental human rights--liberty of thought, conscience, and faith; the exercise of civil and political right; the rights of minorities.'' ``Almost 200 years ago, the United States of America was born as a free and independent nation. The descendants of Europeans who proclaimed their independence in America expressed in that declaration a decent respect for the opinions of mankind and asserted not only that all men are created equal, but they are endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' ``The founders of my country did not merely say that all Americans should have these rights, but all men everywhere should have these rights. And these principles have guided the United States of America throughout its two centuries of nationhood. They have given hope to millions in Europe and on every continent.'' ``But it is important that you recognize the deep devotion of the American people and their Government to human rights and fundamental freedoms and thus to the pledges that this conference has made regarding the freer movement of people, ideas, information.'' I continued in my 1975 speech--``To those nations not participating and to all the people of the world: The solemn obligation undertaken in these documents to promote fundamental rights, economic and social progress, and well- being applies ultimately to all peoples.'' ``And can there be stability and progress in the absence of justice and fundamental freedoms?'' My final comments were: ``History will judge this Conference not by what we say here today, but by what we do tomorrow--not by the promises we make, but by the promises we keep.'' In retrospect, it is fair to say that Leonid Brezhnev and other Eastern European leaders did not realize at the time that in endorsing the human rights basket of the Helsinki Accord they were planting, on their own soil, the seeds of freedom and democracy. In agreeing to the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Accord, the Soviets and the eastern bloc nations unwittingly dragged a Trojan horse for liberty behind the Iron Curtain. Often, current events we believe will be important in history later become obscure and irrelevant. And sometimes, events we consider irrelevant in history, become a defining moment. As former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher noted in Paris in 1990, ``It was clear that we underestimated the long-term affects of the Helsinki Agreement.'' This great British Leader went on to say that the Helsinki Agreements ``were a process which some envisioned as perpetuating the division of Europe [but which have] actually helped overcome that division.'' Likewise, scholars point out that at the time the Magna Carta was adopted in England, its extension of freedom was quite limited and applied only to a privileged few; however, today we recognize the Magna Carta as a dramatic first step on man's march to individual freedom. Following the meeting in Helsinki, watch groups sprang up throughout Europe. The Fourth Basket provision for a follow- up meeting in Belgrade in 1977 and a subsequent meeting in Madrid in 1980 would give these to those who were aggrieved a global forum for their determined anti-Marxist and pro-human rights views. To those suffering behind the Iron Curtain, the Helsinki Accords was a powerful proclamation that contained seminal ideas it was issued at a most opportune time. I applaud President Carter's dedicated and effective support of Arthur Goldberg in Belgrade in 1977 and Max Kampelman in Madrid in 1980; however, it would be obviously unfair to attribute all of the cataclysmic events of 1989 and 1990 to the Final Act, in as much as long suppressed nationalist sentiments, economic hardship, and suppressed religious conditions played equally crucial roles. Today, as we face the harsh realities of August 1995, I am reminded of the words of President Lincoln as he confronted the awesome challenges of the American Civil War. With the Republic hanging in the balance, he observed that ``the occasion is piled high with difficulties and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.'' Yet, even as today's violence and suffering enrage and pull at the heartstrings of all people--and the former Yugoslavia is just one example--I know the central issue in the world remains the preservation of liberty and human rights. When the Berlin Wall fell, those who were protesting repression were reading from documents like the American Declaration of Independence. Today, they are reading to us the words of the Helsinki Accords. These are the great ideas of freedom--the constant drumbeat of ideas that have been repeated time and time again in the Helsinki process. The harsh realities of the present are challenges which signatories of the Helsinki Accords must address. Its member states must wrestle with these challenges and continue to achieve in the future the aims and goals of what was begun here 20 years ago. To realize these hopes and dreams requires planning, commitment, perseverance and hard work. The Helsinki process provides a vision for a future based on liberty and on the freedom to pursue a better life. As the Bible admonishes, where there is no vision, the people perish. So, I compliment all the signers and I'm very proud to have been one of the thirty-five. In August 1975 we made serious promises to our countrymen and to people worldwide. Where human rights did not exist in the thirty-five nations twenty years ago, there is now significant progress and hope for even better times. I congratulate the people in each nation who used the tools of the Final Act to achieve the blessings of human rights. I am confident that if we continue to be vigilant, what we began here two decades ago shall be viewed by future historians as a watershed in the cause of individual freedom and human rights. Twenty years from today, history will again judge whether or not the world is a better place to live because of what we promised here two decades ago, and because of what we promise here today and the promises we keep in the future. The Helsinki Accords are not, then, a Final Act--rather they are an unfinished agenda for the continued growth of human freedom. On this anniversary date, let us resolve to continue anew the work of that agenda.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, but that is not what I wanted to talk about. I did want to make a comment. Mr. Speaker, as the budget debate continues to rage, I want to take this time to state what we ought to be doing to bring to an end this harsh and unrelenting conflict. First of all, I believe most, if not all of us, are trying to create a better America. We just see these terribly important issues from a different perspective. Our destination is the same but we are choosing different roads to get there. I hope we do not lose sight of what is at stake here. And that is the fiscal solvency and the continued well being of all Americans. If we do not come up with a plan to balance the budget now, how will we ever? If we do not reach agreement now, where will we find the resolve to do it next year when it will be even harder? Or the year after that? Along the way though, we need to be fair. Shutting down part of the Government is not only unfair, it does not help either side. What is more, it is unnecessary and it hurts American taxpayers who rely on Government services and Federal employees who want to be on the job delivering those services. This is doubly unfortunate because it is not central to debate. It adds nothing, only detracts from the key issue of agreeing to do that which we have already agreed upon in principle: To reach a balanced budget by the year 2002. To that end, I ask the President and the Congress today, without another hour of delay, to pass whatever stopgap measure is necessary to keep the Government running. And then today, without another hour of delay, I ask the President to become personally involved in the negotiations with the Speaker and majority leader in the Senate. The two sides are closer than one might imagine from listening to harsh rhetoric, from both sides, I might add. It is time for both sides to make commitments rather than goals. Both sides have said they want a 7-year balanced budget. Today it is time to just do it.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 117, a resolution which urges the Government of the People's Republic of China to immediately and unconditionally release Wei Jingsheng, a leader of China's modern democracy movement. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], and the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], for moving this bill quickly. I would say it is good that the Congress is speaking out both in the House and the Senate. When this comes up for a vote, it will be, hopefully, passed 435 to nothing. I wonder, where is the business community? Why are they not speaking out on this issue? This indictment of Wei was handed down only 3 days after Vice President Al Gore met with Chinese President Jiang Zemin in Osaka. Why has Wei been charged with attempting to overthrow the powerful and the repressive and weapons-laden Chinese Government? Because he dared to speak to Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, John Shattuck, shortly after he was released in 1994. Wei, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of hero and a patriot the United States should be supporting. The Clinton administration unfortunately has just simply expressed regret tat the whole incident, a wholly inappropriate response, not even a slap on the wrist. The Vice President, Mr. Speaker, has even refused to meet with Wei's sister who is in Washington lobbying on behalf of her brother. If America does not have a hand to lend in his struggle for freedom, who does? Wei is like Sakharov or Shcharansky or Solzhenitsyn or someone like this. I urge a strong and unanimous vote. I want to again thank Chairman Gilman, Chairman Smith, and the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Pelosi, and the others for their efforts to move this bill quickly. The Chinese Government's formal arrest of Wei in November is a classic example of what happens to China's brave democracy activists when the world turns its back on them. Mr. Speaker, through the de- linking of trade from human rights in May 1994 and the failure of the Senate to take up the China Policy Act of 1995, the United States has indeed turned its back on Wei Jingsheng and the hundreds of other political prisoners, Christians, and Tibetan Buddhists who languish in Chinese jails today. The resolution we are debating today is only a step in the right direction. What the United States really needs is a tougher overall policy towards China. Engagement just isn't working. This indictment of Wei was handed down only 3 days after Vice President Al Gore met with Chinese President Jiang Zemin in Osaka. Why has Wei Jingsheng been charged with attempting to overthrow the powerful, repressive, weapons-laden Chinese Government? Because he dared to speak to Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs John Shattuck shortly after he was released in 1994. Because he dared to tell the world that it should keep pressure on China to address human rights problems. Because he dared to speak to foreign journalists about the need for democracy despite being banned for 3 years from doing so by Chinese authorities. Wei Jingsheng is the kind of hero and patriot the United States should be supporting. But the Clinton administration has simply expressed regret at the whole incident. A wholly inappropriate response. Not even a slap on the wrist. The Vice President has even refused to meet with Wei's sister who is in Washington lobbying on behalf of her brother. If America doesn't have a hand to lend to these struggling for freedom, who does? Where do they turn for help? In July, 410 members of this Chamber supported H.R. 2058, a bill that would have given definition to the administration's China policy and commended brave democracy reformers like Wei Jingsheng. Supporters and opponents of revoking MFN status for China rallied around this unified message of disdain for China's human rights, weapons proliferation, and unfair trade policies. It's been 6 months and the Senate has not yet taken up the bill. There are some who argue it's not the right time to tweak the Chinese Government's nose. There are some who want only to dialogue and engage and continue to let brave reformers like Wei Jingsheng suffer in jail or worse. If Congress cannot pass a statement of policy like H.R. 2058, what hope do people like Wei Jingsheng have? I urge my colleagues to vote for H. Con. Res. 117, but I also encourage my colleagues to look inside themselves and decide when enough is enough. When Congress reconvenes in January, perhaps the MFN- human rights fight should begin anew. America must not walk away from these people.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Federal Employee Separation Incentive and Reemployment Act because of my concern about Federal Government downsizing and its impact on Federal employees. The Federal Government has a responsibility to its employees to make the transition to the private sector as easy as possible. Federal employees separated from employment should have a soft landing. Members should know that Federal employees are some of the most dedicated and hard working people around. The Federal employees I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with over the years have a unique sense of community and that is why they have chosen jobs in public service. Serving the needs of the American people is honorable and indispensable. However, as obsolete Government functions are phased out or new technology reduces the need for some positions, Federal employees will be displaced. Vice President Gore took the lead in 1993 in the downsizing and streamlining effort when he began his ``Reinventing Government'' initiative. As a result of the reinvention, the administration has reduced Federal employment by [[Page E 2321]] about 160,000 jobs. This puts the administration on track to reach its goal of 272,900 job cuts by the year 1999. Furthermore, congressional efforts to eliminate, streamline, or reform outdated programs could accelerate or increase the numbers of Federal jobs lost. Reductions in the number of full time equivalents [FTE's] will displace a number of workers and reductions-in-force [RIF's] most likely will follow. All of the job cuts cannot be absorbed by retirements or attrition. Therefore, as the nation's largest employer, the Federal Government should be sensitive to its displaced employees and do what it can to ease their transition into the private sector--in other words, give them a soft landing. The Federal Employee Separation Incentive and Reemployment Act will provide temporary authority for the payment of retirement and separation incentives which will assist agencies reduce their workforce through attrition rather than RIF's. Buyouts, private sector reemployment training and relocation incentives, a job bank, and extention of health care and life insurance benefits will ease the Federal employee's transition out the Federal work force. This legislation will save the Government money because buyouts are less expensive than RIF's. A reduction in the number of RIF's will protect dwindling morale which adversely impacts on productivity. Finally and most importantly, this legislation will help the separated Federal employee make a smooth transition into the private sector. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a combination of some new and old ideas. This legislation should serve as a starting point for more good ideas which I encourage Federal employee unions, groups, and associations to share with the Civil Service Subcommittee. Also, I call on the administration to put forth some suggestions about how to ease Federal employees' transition into the private sector. For instance, perhaps OPM should conduct job fairs around the country whereby OPM helps match experience and qualified separated Federal employees with private sector jobs. Mr. Speaker, I encourage our colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation, and I urge the chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on Civil Service to hold hearings on this important legislation. This bill is a good government measure intended to help displaced Federal employees. While we may not be able to guarantee lifetime jobs to our dedicated Federal employees, we can help give them a soft landing. Mr. Speaker, the following is a brief description of the incentives and transition assistance included in the bill: (1) Incentive Payments for Employees Eligible for Immediate Retirement.--This program would provide for incentive payments to employees who voluntarily separate but who are not eligible for an immediate annuity. These Voluntary Separation Incentive Programs (VSIPs) are generally referred to as buyouts. VSIPs may be paid only if they are necessary to avoid or minimize the need for involuntary separations due to a RIF, reorganization, transfer of function, or other similar action. (2) Payments and Other Incentives for Employees Not Eligible For Immediate Retirement.--This program gives an incentive to Federal employees who are not eligible for immediate retirement to find private sector employment by providing an incentive payment to a Federal employee who obtains private sector employment within six months after the employee's voluntary separation. The incentive payment is based on the amount of severance pay the employee would have been entitled to in the case of an involuntary separation. The sooner a former employee obtains reemployment, the greater the amount of the reemployment incentive. Specifically, the employee would receive 100 percent of his/ her salary if he or she obtains private sector employment within the first two months of separation. He/she would receive 80 percent if the new employment commences within three months, 60 percent in four months, 40 percent in five months and 20 percent in six months. (3) Reemployment Incentives--Priority Placement Programs for Federal Employees Affected by a Reduction-in-Force.--This program codifies a Presidential order establishing a government wide priority placement program. This program is modeled after the successful Department of Defense priority placement program. In essence, the program would provide a system under which agencies will be required to fill positions with displaced employees referred through the program if the employee is qualified for the position. Agencies would obtain employee names from a central inventory of employees who have been RIFed or given notice that they will be RIFed. (4) Non-Federal Employment Incentives--Retraining Incentives.--Under this program, agencies may pay a retraining incentive to non-Federal employers upon the employee's completion of 12 months of continuous employment by the non-Federal employer. This gives private sector employers an incentive to hire displaced federal employees by paying for a portion of the employee's retraining. Retraining incentives shall not exceed $20,000. (5) Non-Federal Employment Incentives--Relocation Incentives.--Under this program, agencies may pay a relocation incentive to an eligible employee if it is necessary for the employee to relocate in order to commence employment with a non-Federal employer. Relocation incentives shall not exceed $20,000. (6) Job Placement and Counseling Services.--Under this program, agencies may establish a program to provide job placement and counseling services to current and former employees and their families. Services may include career and personal counseling, training in job search skills, and job placement assistance. (7) Extension of Life Insurance Benefits.--A federal employee who is separated involuntarily or takes early retirement may elect to continue his/her life insurance coverage and pay both the employee's and agency contribution share. Under current law he/she can not. (8) Extension of Health Insurance Benefits.--Current law generally requires that retiring employees must have participated in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) for the five years preceding retirement in order to continue their coverage as retirees. This new program directs the Office of Personnel Management to waive the five-year requirement for a federal employee who retires before October 1, 1999, and is eligible for an immediate annuity, provided the individual is enrolled in the FEHBP on the date of retirement.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the House's attention a front page article from the December 3, 1995, Minneapolis edition of the Star Tribune title, ``Dead Broke,'' about how gamblers are killing themselves, bankrupting their families, and costing Minnesota millions. Let me read from this compelling article: In less than a decade, legalized gambling in Minnesota has created a broad new class of addicts, victims and criminals whose activities are devastating families and costing taxpayers and businesses millions of dollars. Thousands have ruined themselves financially, some have committed crimes, and a handful have killed themselves. Thousands more will live for years on the edge of bankruptcy, sometimes working two or three jobs to pay off credit-card debt. The Star Tribune said these people include Minnesotans such as: Catherine Avina of St. Paul, an assistant attorney general who killed herself with an overdose of antidepressants after a 4-day gambling binge. The mother of three had been fired just a few days earlier, and left debts of more than $7,000 and $600 in bounced checks. John Lee, a 19-year-old St. Paul college student who lost $8,000 in two nights at a casino. He returned home, kicked down the door to his apartment, put the barrel of a shotgun to his head, and killed himself. Lam Ha of Blaine, a father of two and waiter at a restaurant. Last year, he and his wife filed for bankruptcy protection with a $76,000 debt, much of it on 25 credit cards. They listed gambling losses of $40,000 in 1994 alone, more than their joint annual income. Reva Wilkinson of Cedar, who is in prison for embezzling more than $400,000 from the Guthrie Theater to support her habit. Her case cost taxpayers more than $100,000 to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate. According to the article, the costs of gambling include the following: 38,000 probable addicted gamblers in Minnesota; 100,000 people with increasing gambling problems; 6 confirmed gambling related suicides; more than 140 confirmed suicide attempts since 1992; more than 1,000 people per year declaring bankruptcy; $400,000 per year in [[Page H 13936]] welfare benefits withdrawn from casino ATM's and $200 to $300 million in estimated annual social costs--taxes, lost wages, and debts. The article also reported that some $39,000 a month in welfare benefits from Hennepin and Ramsey counties is being withdrawn from automatic teller machines in casinos. In September, there were 769 withdrawals of public-assistance benefits using cash machines at Mystic Lake Casino in Prior Lake. Seventeen pawn shops have opened near casinos in the State. Several owners said they get 50 percent of their business from gamblers. Ten years ago, there was one Gamblers Anonymous group meeting in the State. Today, there are 49. Calls to the State Compulsive Gambling Hotline doubled from 1992 to 1994, reaching nearly 500 per month. Between 1988 when the first of the State's 17 casinos began operating and 1994, counties with casinos saw the crime rate rise twice as fast as those without casinos. The median change in counties with casinos was a 39-percent increase, compared with an 18-percent increase in noncasino counties. And, in the face of rising crime, pathological gambling, increased bankruptcies, and broken families, what are political leaders doing? The Star Tribune says they have been silent mostly because there is a lack of credible information on the subject. The article said: Political leaders--even those who have taken an interest in gambling issues--acknowledge they know little about the problem. There has been no comprehensive study of the social costs--the debt, crime, and suicides associated with gambling. The state does not know what kind of treatment works, or how successful the programs it funds have been. Assistant Attorney General Alan Gilbert, a member of the State Advisory Council on Gambling, and ``But I think common sense tells you that there has to be some adverse effects. * * * We just don't know the extent of it.'' Mr. Speaker, public officials in Minnesota are not alone. Public officials in Virginia, Louisiana, and States across America don't have the information they need to make informed decisions about gambling policy. That is why I have introduced, and 126 Members of the House have cosponsored, H.R. 497, the National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission Act. This legislation would charge a blue-ribbon panel with the duty of looking at all the social costs described by the Star Tribune so that America's policymakers and citizens know what the impact of legalized gambling may be. Mr. Speaker, the House Judiciary Committee ordered H.R. 497 reported by voice vote and the report could be filed as early as this week. I urge members who have not yet cosponsored to cosponsor this important legislation so we can rationally determine whether or not, as the Star Tribune headline puts it, America is going ``Dead Broke.'' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record immediately following my statement an Associated Press article which summarizes the three-page Star Tribune special report, as follows: Minneapolis.--Legalized gambling in Minnesota has created a new class of addicts, victims and criminals, devastating families and costing taxpayers and businesses millions of dollars, a published report says. According to the report in Sunday's Star Tribune, thousands of Minnesotans have ruined themselves financially, some have committed crimes, and a handful have killed themselves because of gambling problems. Thousands more will live for years on the edge of bankruptcy, sometimes working two or three jobs to pay off high-interest credit-card debts, the newspaper said. Political leaders acknowledge they know little about the problem, or about the social costs of problem gambling such as debt, crime and suicides, the Star Tribune said. ``The social costs really haven't been assessed very accurately, and they certainly haven't been quantified at this point,'' said Assistant Attorney General Alan Gilbert, a member of the state Advisory Council on Gambling. ``But I think common sense tells you that there has to be some adverse effects. . . . We just don't know the extent of it.'' Minnesota's problem gamblers are mostly middle-class people whose appetite for wagering grew from office football pools or church bingo to pulltabs, racetracks, lotteries and casinos when state and federal governments began, legalizing them in the mid-1980s, the newspaper said. The Star Tribune said they include Minnesotans such as: Catherine Avina of St. Paul, an assistant attorney general who killed herself with an overdose of antidepressants after a four-day gambling binge. The mother of three had been fired just a few days earlier, and left debts of more than $7,000 and $600 in bounced checks. John Lee, a 19-year-old St. Paul college student who lost $8,000 in two nights at a casino. He returned home, kicked down the door to his apartment, put the barrel of a shotgun to his head and killed himself. Lam Ha of Blaine, a father of two and waiter at a restaurant. Last year, he and his wife filed for bankruptcy protection with a $76,000 debt, much of it on 25 credit cards. They listed gambling losses of $40,000 in 1994 alone more than their joint annual income. Reva Wilkinson of Cedar, who is in prison for embezzling more than $400,000 from the Guthrie Theater to support her habit. Her case cost taxpayers more than $100,000 to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate. The newspaper said even conservative estimate of the social costs of problem gambling suggest that it costs Minnesotans more than $200 million per year in taxes, lost income, bad debts and crime. An estimated $4.1 billion is legally wagered in the state each year, it said. Two independent surveys last year estimated that the number of people who have experienced significant problems because of gambling doubled from 1990 to 1994 and now exceeds 100,000. One of those studies also concluded that there are about 38,000 people in the state with serious gambling addictions. The problem has taken a toll on a larger-scale level as well. In a report today, the newspaper said the 14 Minnesota counties with casinos in them are experiencing a significantly faster growth in the crime rate than are counties without casinos. Between 1988 when the first of the state's 17 casinos began operating and 1994, counties with casinos saw the crime rate rise twice as fast as those without casinos. The median change in counties with casinos was a 39 percent increase, compared with an 18 percent increase in non-casino counties, the paper said. In Sunday's report, the newspaper listed several indicators of the scope of Minnesota's gambling problem. Among them: More gamblers are going bankrupt. It said there is evidence that more than 1,000 people a year are filing for bankruptcy protection in cases involving gambling losses. Gamblers are committing suicide. The newspaper found six people with gambling problems who had committed suicide since 1991, five of them in the past two years. At least 140 gamblers have attempted suicide, it said. The real numbers are probably much higher, it said. Credit counselors are seeing increasing numbers of gamblers with seemingly insurmountable debts. Some $39,000 a month in welfare benefits from Hennepin and Ramsey counties is being withdrawn from automatic teller machines in casinos. In September, there were 769 withdrawals of public-assistance benefits using cash machines at Mystic Lake Casino in Prior Lake. Ten years ago, there was one Gamblers Anonymous group meeting in the state. Today, there are 49. Calls to the state Compulsive Gambling Hotline doubled from 1992 to 1994, reaching nearly 500 per month.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment, in that it violates clause 7 of rule XVI, which rules that the amendment must be related to the pending subject matter, and the amendment is not germane.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would say that we do recognize the State of Rhode Island's concerns, and we have written the Federal Railroad Administration in an effort to address the concerns of the gentleman, and the issue will be addressed during the subcommittee hearing next year. We do insist on the point of order. I understand what the gentleman is trying to do.