Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I despise the Chinese Government as much as anybody in this body. Let me just back up before I say that and say, if there is any blame for the procedure today, it is my fault. If you blame, blame me. We met with the dissidents, we met with those who have family members in jail, we met with the Christians in China, and they said this would be the best procedure for them. They said if we could get a good, strong vote, and in the resolution that many of you maybe did not even read, do not denigrate the resolution. It for the first time puts the Congress on record in support of the democracy movement. Let me tell you, those of you who love MFN, it has put you on a spot, because next year if the Chinese have not stopped all they are doing, many of you are going to be morally obligated to take it away. This is good and this is what the dissidents in China said. This is what the people who are students have come and said. This helps them. And I wanted to do it. Second of all, Harry Wu is a friend of mine. I helped bring Harry to town. I feel responsible in some respects for Harry being in jail. I have been in touch with Harry's wife for the last few weeks. She has been by my office. We have set up all the meetings. I care about Harry. What happens to Harry is partially my responsibility. My colleagues are men and women who are absolved from it. They did not bring him to town. They did not hold the hearings. They did not push Harry's organ transplant video out. I did, and he is my responsibility. And if I offended anybody, I apologize, but I take the full and complete responsibility for the procedure that we are doing. Go back into China. They are killing people in China 25 and under and using their kidneys for transplant. We know that. We know that because of Harry. We have been trying to get many of our colleagues to come and see the film; not many have come and seen the film. We also know that they have a forced population policy. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] has been a leader in that. We have a video, that we could not get many of our colleagues to come to see, that we showed the other day where there are dying rooms. They put baby girls in these rooms and they die. They die. They do not feed them. My colleagues say, ``What are you talking about?'' Come to my office. I will show you the video. That is what they do. We know they sold weapons. They sold weapons to Iraq that killed American men and women. We know that. We know they are selling chemical weapons. We know what they are doing with regard to their nuclear technology. They are selling weapons to the Khartoum Government in Sudan that are being used to kill black Africans in the Sudan. I know how bad they are. I know they are worse than many of my colleagues even think they are. Do I believe that business is necessarily going to change them? I don't believe it. I am not a mercantile Republican Cato libertarian. I don't believe business necessarily changes it. Mr. Speaker, I have been to the Holocaust Museum and I saw the people that made the same argument with Nazi Germany in 1933 and 1935 and 1937. Do a little more business and maybe it will change them. I do not believe it will. I have met with Li Peng, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I. He is a butcher. He has blood on his hands. The blood drips from his hands. And some day when Li Peng stands before the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, he is going to have to explain what he did and how he killed all of those people. But what does that get us now? We can put our frustration and offer it, and I apologize and ask my colleagues' forgiveness. I beg their forgiveness if I offended anybody. But if we get a vote with 35 or 38, we will confuse the Chinese. They do not know what that means; they know what this means. And many of my colleagues, many of them voted for this really without reading it. This is tough. The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] did a great job. And I take my hat off to the Speaker. The Speaker was involved in working this out. I do not think we could have done it if he had not put his personal prestige on the line. This was not some fly by night thing we did. This will help the democracy movement in China. As I made a note, as I commented the first time I debated it, I said every night I pray for China. I pray that China is free. I remember once I was at a town meeting several years ago and a lady asked me, ``What happened? Why did communism fall?'' And you know what I said to her? I said what any Republican would say. I said, ``It fell because we had the B-1 and Ronald Reagan was tough and all.'' And you know what she said? She said, ``Young man that is not why it fell. Maybe that helped, but'' she said, ``communism fell because many of us as little girls and boys have been praying for the defeat of communism.'' Mr. Speaker, we should pray and we can pray for the defeat of communism in China and I believe it will come. We will all live to see it. We will live to see the day when they can sell Popsicles in Tiananmen Square and laugh and run and do all those things. Do my colleagues want that to happen? The resolution you passed is the right thing. Do not even have a vote to table, because it will confuse people. Mr. Speaker, my last comment is the Congress has been on record and my colleagues are going to have to deal with this next year. Unless the Good Lord takes me, I am coming back next year and if there has been no change, we are going to put in a motion to disapprove. The last thing I say to the business community, if they happen to be listening, I would have hoped that the business community would have taken the same attitude that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and many Republicans and Democrats who have come together. The business community has been silent. They have been silent. It reminds me of the statement about selling the rope to hang themselves. They have been silent and that has been disappointing. I would have hoped that Boeing would have spoken out and I would have hoped that TRW would have spoken out, but they went silent. But the Congress did not go silent. We have a lot to be proud of. The message that I want the Chinese peasants to hear tomorrow morning when they listen to the little crystal set and they pick up the TV station or radio show, the United States Congress, the people's Congress, the Congress that the American people elect here, will send a message that we care deeply; that we commend, not condemn, the freedom movement; that we condemn slave labor; that we condemn the organ transplants; we condemn the forced population policy. We condemn all of them. Mr. Speaker, we require this administration, which has been equally bad as the Bush administration on this, to make reports, so next year when this comes out we have the reports that are due. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, Radio Free Asia whereby when we go to Eastern Europe they would say that the Radio Free Europe made a difference. I want to thank those who were involved in this. Again, it is my fault for messing up, if we messed up. It was a mistake of the heart and not of the mind, if you will. Now, I would hope and pray that there be no vote, but I understand that Members would do it.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority leader, and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], as I did before, and thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. Both were very good. The gentleman from Nebraska was very balanced and Ms. Pelosi was like Margaret Thatcher working for something in London; she never gave up. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support. I would hope that there would be a strong, large vote; that any Members who have any reservations on each side, I would hope that they would put those reservations aside so we can send a strong bipartisan message. Third, it puts the Congress on record for the first time in a united way. There are clear objectives. It calls for action by the administration. It calls that Radio Free Asia will be established within 3 months, whereby the people in China can hopefully hear what is happening in places like in the U.S. Congress. It calls for a Presidential report for the first time. If anyone is listening in China, it puts the Congress on record in support of the democracy movement in China. And is that not a great day for those who gave their life in Tiananmen Square and other places to know that the Congress now has given its official imprimatur on the democracy movement? And, as a gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] says, it makes a strong statement on Harry Wu. Mr. Speaker, it is our hope and prayer that the Chinese see that we have come together; that the one thing they can do to give a sign of reconciliation would be the release of Harry Wu. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2058, the China Policy Act of 1995 sponsored by the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Mr. Bereuter. H.R. 2058 is a compromise reached after several hours of discussions between the gentlewoman from California, Representative Pelosi, the gentleman from Nebraska, Representative Bereuter, and myself. It is a good bill because it garners support from both sides of the MFN issue and both sides of the aisle. I hope it will pass with an overwhelming majority. Passing H.R. 2058 with a unanimous vote will send a powerful message of concern to the Communist government in Beijing and a powerful message of support for the burgeoning Chinese democracy movement. I will say that the U.S. Congress is united in its deep concern about China's treatment of Harry Wu; its continuing human rights violations; its violation of international nonproliferation standards and its unfair trading practices. This is the toughest language on China to come out of Congress in a while and it will plow new ground. Personally, I think that the United States has no business giving nondiscriminatory trade status to the world's largest Communist government. I think revoking MFN is our strongest hook. However, I think it is more important for our ultimate goal of promoting democracy in China to speak with a united voice. That's why those of us on both sides of the issue have come together around this legislation. The Communist government in China maintains the world's largest system of slave labor camps--the laogai--which are used as the central cog of repression to harshly stifle dissent and break the human spirit. Harry Wu, who sits in a Chinese prison right now because of his commitment to exposing China's laogai system, has documented over 1,000 forced labor camps in China. China's strict one-child-per-family policy has resulted in gross violations of human rights, including forced abortion and sterilization. In my office, I have a 40-minute video filmed by a crew from Channel 4 in Great Britain showing the dying rooms in China's state-run orphanages where baby girls who become ill are left to die of starvation and neglect. The video also shows the abhorrent conditions in China's orphanages where children, mostly girls, are forced to grow up almost totally devoid of nurture and attention because of China's one-child-per-family policy. We know that the Communist government in Beijing has sold nuclear weapons and technology to Iraq and Iran and M-11 missiles to Pakistan. We know almost conclusively that the Chinese Government takes the internal organs of executed prisoners without consent, young men around 20 years old are the preferred donors, and sells them to foreign buyers for around $30,000 each. Harry Wu has documented it, the BBC has documented it, Human Rights Watch/Asia has documented it, Amnesty International has documented it, and a Hong Kong newspaper has documented it. I would be happy to share the BBC tape with any Member interested in viewing it. Even a Chinese Government official admitted it at a U.N. meeting several years ago. When asked now if this kind of despicable behavior occurs, the Chinese Government, of course, denies it. That is not surprising but it does not mean it doesn't happen. We know that Catholics and Protestants who dare to worship independently of government control are continually thrown in jail, harassed, and in some cases beaten by Chinese security officials. Estimates indicate that there are 20-50 million Christians in China who refuse to worship in China's Government-sanctioned churches. The official Protestant and Catholic churches in China, which combined, claim a membership of only 10 million, must use the Government- sanctioned doctrine. As the Chinese Government becomes more wary of dissent and unrest in this uncertain period of transition, surveillance on Chinese Christians has been stepped up. In Tibet, conditions have worsened since we looked at the MFN issue last year. As of April 26 of this year, there had already been more political arrests in Tibet in 1995 than there were in all of 1994. Prisoners have died in the past year as a result of mistreatment while in prison including a 24-year-old nun. Tibetan monks continue to be thrown in jail or forced into exile. The Chinese Government has placed restrictive guidelines on Tibetan monasteries and refused repeated requests by the Dalai Lama for talks to work out a peaceful settlement. Now the Chinese Government is holding Harry Wu, a brave American citizen and human rights activist. He was detained just weeks after President Clinton renewed China's MFN status. He is being investigated for the simple crime of speaking the truth about China's laogai camps. This arrest is a clear indication that China thinks the U.S. Government is weak and more interested in appeasing business interests than speaking up for what is right. These kinds of abuses are not new in China. They have gone on for years while the U.S. Government pursues a weak policy, or perhaps no policy. President Clinton has been unwilling to speak out boldly and forcefully and instead has promised to promote our interests through engagement. So far, it's been an empty promise. Nothing has happened and I'm not convinced--and that's saying it nicely--the administration is doing anything to promote human rights in China. Congress as a whole has not spoken out boldly and forcefully--but that is about to change. H.R. 2058 sets a new standard for progress. It sets out clear objectives for U.S. policy. It demands the release of Harry Wu immediately and unconditionally. It requires the adherence to international nonproliferation standards and requires China to immediately halt the export of ballistic missile technology and weapons of mass destruction. It clearly and unequivocally calls on the Clinton administration to intensify diplomatic efforts to persuade the Chinese Government to respect the internationally recognized rights of its citizens and says specifically what Congress considers progress in this area. It also commends the Chinese people's internal democracy movement-- one of the most important provisions in the bill. H.R. 2058 has teeth. It requires Radio Free Asia to be on the air in China within 3 months of enactment. Radio Free Asia will promote democracy in China and will give democracy reformers and other interested listeners news and information they will not hear from the Government-controlled media. Radio Free Europe was a powerful force in the democratization of Eastern Europe and I am convinced it will have the same effect in China. Radio Free Asia has been authorized by this body force, but so far, the U.S. Information Agency has been slow in getting it on the air. This bill steps up the pace. Finally, the bill requires the administration to report to Congress every 6 months on the actions taken and the progress made in achieving the human rights and proliferation objectives outlined in the bill. Again, this is tough language that requires action. We will be able to look at this issue every 6 months and see exactly what has been tried and achieved. We will also see what has not been done. I support H.R. 2058 because it is a building block. It has the support of the major Chinese dissident groups and human rights organizations. If we pass H.R. 2058, next year we will be able to ask these questions: Has the Chinese Government taken concrete steps to dismantle the forced labor camps? Has the Chinese Government ended coercive birth control practices? Has the Chinese Government ended crackdowns on Catholics and Protestants? Has the Chinese Government begun to respect the rights of the people of Tibet? Does the Chinese Government allow totally free worship, free press, and freedom of associations? Have political prisoners been set free? Does China adhere to the provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the missile technology control regime? If the answer to any of these is no, Congress will be obligated to act. We will know where to look for progress. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Bereuter bill.

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we could still have the training that the gentleman from Texas said, and I think it is appropriate that we have it, under the Packard amendment. I hope the Packard amendment will stay in, otherwise we will just destroy these Federal employees and it is inappropriate that we do it.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hobson amendment. It is vague. It cannot be implemented, and the Hobson amendment puts great pressure on the Federal employee, and as a former Federal employee, we ought not put this pressure on them. Let me tell my colleagues, put this back where it was. We had hearings. There was New Age training going on in the Department of Interior. Let me tell my colleagues what the hearings said. One person came before us, we had Federal employees, they said, ``I thought the topics unusual and the confrontations between students and the trainers somewhat unsettling, particularly in the use of abusive language and obscenities directed toward the students.'' He, the instructor, mentioned that 66 percent of psychotherapy patients are Catholics or Jews; that religion was fear-inducing and repressive. He characterized religion as more farfetched than the Flat Earth Society. He discussed the arrogance of Christianity. He said that evil exists only as a function of the mind. Another one talked about post-traumatic stress that she went through. It has ruined their life and they have had to leave because of this training. An air traffic controller, a person said he was forced to walk through a gauntlet of females, not unlike the Navy's Tailhook scandal, where he was groped and partially undressed by a group of females. He described how this affected his life. Listen to this. This is what the man said that Federal training did to him. He said, ``During the next few weeks, I would wake up in the middle of the night to find my wife sobbing. She became depressed and bitter. She would tell me she knew that I had done nothing wrong, but it was obvious that she didn't look at me in the same way. Our marriage had started to suffer as a result. She began to see a psychiatrist,'' his wife. And then, ``Things are still no better. We both feel that our marriage still suffers as a result of the FAA training.'' The stories went on. And what the Packard language does, it says that [[Page H 7211]] this will not go on anymore. And, second, in the area of AIDS let me make it clear, the Packard language would permit the understanding of AIDS. I think there ought to be that type of language. I think there ought to be training. I think there ought to be education. We should explain to somebody that if somebody has AIDS, that is okay. We can sit next to them. We can talk to them. We can touch them. We can be friends. This is not the way that it has been explained that I heard. The hearings that we held, and if you watched them on Nightline, and if you read the IG reports, it pitted person against person. It devalued a man and woman's religion. No Federal funding, no Federal funding, no taxpayer dollar ought to be why we destroy a man and a wife and their religion whereby people have to go and get psychiatric care. Read the IG report. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Hobson amendment. I know the gentleman from Ohio is a good Member. If he could have sat through these hearings, and heard how this has destroyed people's lives, and it happened under the Bush administration too, as well as sometimes under the Clinton administration. I strongly support the gentleman and I salute the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, a close friend of mine has passed away. He was also a friend of other Members and staff on both sides of the aisle. His name is Bob Heiney and he worked for many years for the National Canners Association--now called the National Food Processors Association. Several years ago I made a list of people who had made a major impact on my life. After members of my family, Bob Heiney was at the top of the list. He was a mentor, a teacher, and a positive role model to all who knew him. He was honest, decent, ethical, moral. When I think about the opportunities he gave me as a young man, it makes me realize the responsibility that we all have to help and encourage those just starting out in their careers. I shall always remember Mr. Heiney and be grateful for his life. I would like to share his obituary as follows with my colleagues. Obituary--Robert Ben Heiney Robert Ben Heiney of Plantation Village, Wilmington, N.C., died July 13, 1995, at Cornelia Nixon Davis Health Care Center. Mr. Heiney was born in Huntington, IN, on September 16, 1909, the youngest child of Enos Boyd Heiney and Della Miller Heiney. He attended public school in Indianapolis and in Milwaukee, WI. In 1930, he began working for the National Canners Association in Washington, D.C., while a night school undergraduate at George Washington University. He earned a law degree from National University in 1935. Mr. Heiney served as commanding officer of a Naval gun crew on board an Army cargo vessel in the Southwest pacific during World War II. After the war he returned to work in Washington for the National Canners Association--now called the National Food Processors Association--where he continued his career in government-industry relations as a legislative specialist. Prior to Mr. Heiney's retirement he was also a vice president and director of NCA's public affairs programs. During 37 years as a McLean, VA, resident he served as a volunteer fireman and as president of the McLean Citizens Association, had leadership roles in local PTA organizations, and was a Sunday School director and vestryman for Saint John's Episcopal Church. Following 44 years of dedicated service with the National Canners Association, Mr. Heiney announced his formal retirement on September 30, 1974. He maintained an interest in the food industry and in political life as partner and private consultant with Frank R. Wolf (currently serving as a member of Congress from northern Virginia) in their firm, H AND W ASSOCIATES. In 1976, the Heineys moved to Lake of the Woods [[Page E 1460]] near Locust Grove, VA, where he worked in local church and Lions Club activities and enjoyed boating and golfing. In 1989, the Heineys moved to Plantation Village in Wilmington, NC, where Mr. Heiney enjoyed gardening, woodworking, bowling and playing bridge. He also participated as a volunteer in the New Hanover County Schools and received a Governor's Award for his volunteer support for the Cornelia Nixon Davis Auxiliary program. Mr. Heiney was an avid reader and throughout his life he was a loyal supporter of both local and national Republican political organizations and their causes. He is preceded in death by his beloved wife of 60 years, Margaret Laura Roth. He is survived by a son, Robert B. Heiney, Jr., of Portland, OR, and a daughter, Margaret Stouffer, of Virginia Beach, VA., seven grandchildren and one great grandchild. A memorial service will be held at Cornelius Nixon Davis Health Care Center on Monday July 17, at 2:00 p.m. Expressions of sympathy may be made as contributions to the Cornelia Nixon Davis Health Care Center Memorial Garden fund or to the CND Auxiliary.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I was not going to speak, but I rise in strong but reluctant opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] and also the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay]. Let me tell you why. One, the committee has cut them by 50 percent already. Secondly, they have a plan to go private. Third is the good that the Trust has done on Main Street programs throughout the country. In the town of Winchester in my congressional district, the city of Winchester changed hands 72 times in the Civil War, 72 times. The Trust has been involved, and they have saved Civil War battlefields. The battle of Cedar Creek, which is the only battle in the Civil War that the North and South won the battle the same day, in the morning of the battle, the South won. After they finished winning, they stopped. Then Sheridan came down and then came back and attacked the South and they lost. There at Belle Grove at the Battle of Cedar Creek they have saved. They have done so many other things. The Civil War battlefields, Montpelier, you go on and on. I think the committee has a reasonable thing. They cut them 50 percent. They are out of business federally next year. But to pull the rug out now I think would be a mistake. I strongly urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Hutchinson amendment.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, so much has been said, let me just cover a few other points. Harry is a scholar at the Hoover Institute. He is an author. His latest book is Bitter Winds, where he talks about his 19 years in the gulag. With regard to these circumstances, as the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] said, Harry is an American citizen. Harry Wu is an American citizen with a valid passport who has been arrested and detained by the Chinese Government. They have not even allowed our government to interview him, to see him. He is a moral leader, not only in the United States, but in the world. He is almost like the Sharanski of China, if you will. I want to thank the people who moved this out of the committee so fast, and thank the leadership of the Congress. I think the fact that Congress has acted so quickly, I have never seen the Congress has acted so quickly, I have never seen the Congress act this quickly on anything, and the fact that in these busy days, staying in around the clock, that the Congress has brought this up is very, very important. We are asking that he be released. Released. Unconditionally released, whereby he can return to his family. I do not know that Harry is listening at this moment, but I know his wife is, and we just remember Harry in our prayers and remember her. I would just say to the Chinese Government, and I do not know if they are watching tonight, but if anything were to happen to Harry Wu, I just think that the Chinese Government would pay a price for the future that they do not even realize. We are not going to make any threats tonight, and I do not think it is appropriate to be combining this with MFN or all these other things. But if anything ever happened to Harry Wu, I pledge myself I would commit myself and dedicate myself to doing anything and everything I can to make sure that there had been a price paid. So we call on the Chinese Government to release Harry Wu and let him return to his family. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for moving this resolution so fast.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.

Mr. WOLF. Yes, I am opposing the Meyers amendment.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I will not take the whole 5 minutes. It is getting late and I know the hour has gone on. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Smith amendment. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I had the opportunity to visit China together and the stories that we were told with regard to coercive abortion were unbelievable. I would also urge Members, I have a film that I watched in my office yesterday. I have a copy in my office whereby in China they are getting young girl babies and putting them in what they call the dying rooms. They put them in these rooms and they just allow them to stay there for days, upon days, upon days. The film ends with a young child called Mei Ming, which means ``No Name,'' and she is left in the room for about 10 days and they go in and they open up the blanket and she dies. Mr. Chairman, we know what they are doing. We have had women tell us of tracking down to require abortions. UNFPA money does go to China. For that one purpose alone the Smith amendment is the right thing to do. So, I strongly urge the defeat of the Meyers amendment and strong support of the Smith amendment.

Mr. WOLF. I do. I am very, very strong pro-life. And also let me say that I strongly support family planning. I strongly support birth control. But I supported the Mexico policy and I think with regard to China it would be absolutely wrong, any time we would have an opportunity to shut down giving any aid to them in any way, it would be the appropriate thing.

Mr. WOLF. But Mexico City policy is. And I will bring the film around to the gentleman's office today

Mr. WOLF. China is an issue. It is a major issue. They are tried together. There will be the vote on the Meyers amendment and then the vote on the Smith amendment.

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

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am really sorry this amendment has to be offered. I would have hoped that the Indonesian Government would have learned, and this is an opportunity I think to send a message to them. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] is a good amendment. The Indonesian military should not be rewarded for their conduct with the American IMET dollars. Congress and the American people value human rights and dignity, and we should not be timid about conveying that message to countries that do not share our basic concerns. We should be prepared to use bills like this to send that message. Mr. Chairman, the State Department's country reports on Human Rights Practices for 1994 reports, ``The Indonesian Government continued to commit serious human rights abuses and in some areas, notably freedom of expression, it became markedly more oppressive, departing from a long-term trend toward greater openness. The most serious abuses included the continuing inability of the people to change their government and harsh repression in East Timor.'' I would tell the Members of the body, if they could have seen the film and talked to the men and women that were there, what the Indonesian army did to these people was brutal, absolute persecution of the Catholic Church. The Congress should be concerned with these issues, and I strongly urge the Members of the body to support this amendment. Hopefully this will send a message to Indonesia, where by next year things will be good and this will not be a problem.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I filed an amendment for consideration which would have provided $30 million for law enforcement training and judicial improvement efforts in Russia, the new independent states of the former Soviet Union, Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. I will not offer the amendment today; however, I would like to raise this issue in the House and obtain an assurance from Chairman Callahan that this training is a priority that will be addressed in conference. Last year Congress set aside $30 million which enabled the FBI, DEA, U.S. Customs, and other U.S. law enforcement agencies to start new and innovative training programs to help professionalize the police in the region, and allowed on-going efforts to improve and strengthen prosecutorial and judicial agencies. Furthermore, the House Committee on International Relations has recognized the critical need and importance of this funding. In its report on the ``American Overseas Interests Act of 1995,'' which passed this House on June 8, the Committee urged that up to $30 million be allocated in each of FY96 and FY97 to support rule of law, law enforcement, and criminal justice assistance activities in the NIS, and East European and Baltic States. I agree that this is sound policy. The goal of funding programs to assist the struggling democracies of the NIS and Eastern Europe will fail if criminal elements take over those countries. Moreover, organized crime that flourishes in Russia is spilling over into the United States. The problem is so prevalent that the FBI established a Russian Organized Crime Squad in May 1994. Earlier this year the FBI arrested in New York allegedly one of the most powerful Russian crime leaders along with five of his associates on federal charges of conspiracy to commit extortion. According to the FBI, Russian organized crime groups use businesses in the NIS, Western and Central Europe, and the United States to serve as fronts for laundering the proceeds of illegal activities and for conducting highly profitable commerce in goods in the Commonwealth of Independent States. This commerce, rife with corruption, thrives on such illegal practices as extortion, kickbacks, bribery of public officials, and violence. Last year Congress began to address the serious organized crime threat in the region and we should do so again this year. I would appreciate knowing whether the chairman of the Foreign Operations appropriations subcommittee will work with me to provide the necessary funding for this critical purpose.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize the service of Lt. Gen. Charles E. Dominy to the U.S. Army and to our Nation as he prepares to retire. General Dominy's career in the Army has spanned 33 years, including his service as a cadet at the U.S. Military Academy. During these three decades he has served our Nation in a number of important capacities. In his final assignment prior to retirement, General Dominy serves as chief of the Army legislative liaison and as director of the U.S. Army staff, a position from which he has had to confront the numerous issues and developments surrounding the Armed Forces in the 1990's. His work has received widespread praise and commendation. As chief of the Army's Office of Legislative Liaison, he worked with Members of Congress and their staffs on the numerous issues affecting our Nation's military. Before his tenure in Washington, General Dominy was a platoon leader as well as a leader and trainer for Army troops. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Lt. Gen. Charles Dominy for all of his dedicated service and hard work, and I am honored to join with his family, friends, and colleagues in recognizing his accomplishments and wishing him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a matter of great importance to our Nation and especially to our youth. Many of us read every day about the tragedy that accompanies driving while intoxicated [DWI], speeding, foregoing seatbelts, and other risky behavior on the part of our Nation's young drivers. During the 103d Congress, I introduced legislation with the purpose of reducing these senseless tragedies. Today, I proudly reintroduced this important legislation, the High Risk Drivers Act of 1995, and hope my colleagues will join in this worthy effort by becoming a cosponsor. The High Risk Drivers Act of 1995 sets up an incentive grant program to encourage States to implement programs designed to improve the traffic safety performance of high risk drivers. To qualify for incentive grants, States would have to establish a provisional licensing system which mandates that a minor may not obtain a full license until the young driver has held a provisional license for more than a year with a perfect driving record. In addition, States would have to take a number of the following steps to qualify for a grant, including establishing a .02 blood alcohol content [BAC] maximum for minors; mandating seat belt use for all passengers in a motor vehicle; a use-and-lose provision which would cost any young driver his or her license for 6 months if convicted of purchasing or possessing alcohol; a youth-oriented traffic safety enforcement, education, and training program for State officials and young persons; a mandatory minimum penalty of $500 for selling alcohol to a minor; development of a procedure to ensure that traffic records, both instate and out-of-State, are available to the appropriate government officials; and a prohibition on open containers of alcohol in the passenger compartment of any vehicle on a public highway, except for chartered buses. In addition, a supplemental grant program would be available to States which took steps such as providing information to parents on the effect of traffic convictions on insurance rates and providing stricter penalties for speeding for drivers under the age of 21. As we all know, underage drinking and driving is an all-too-frequent deadly combination which we read about seemingly every day in our local newspapers. We must work together to help solve this problem, and the High Risk Drivers Act of 1995 will be an important step in this effort. Mr. Speaker, I urge each and every one of my colleagues here in the House to join as a cosponsor of the High Risk Drivers Act of 1995, and help to ensure passage of this important and needed legislation.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I could not live with myself and continue to serve in the Congress if I did not speak on this amendment. I would not deserve to have the right to serve in this body. I have visited Yugoslavia three times. The first time with the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Chris Smith, who will speak in support of it. We were in Vukovar when the Serbs were bombing Vukovar, and we went down in the cellars and saw the people who told us that their families had been slaughtered. Slaughtered. They had no weapons to defend themselves. Now Vukovar will go down in the history of Yugoslavia as a place that will be like somewhere unbelievable in their history. Second, we went back one other time on a CSCE trip. We went into Mostar. In east Mostar the Croats and then the Serbs have been bombing and bombing. Here is a picture of a young lady, if the cameras and Members can pick it up, that will show that she was in a hospital, with no medicine, nothing at all to take care of her. We were in a prison camp run by the Serbs. The Moslems used to go around like this with their heads down, and they could not come up and look you in the eye. If they did, they hollered at them, they shouted at them. That will stick in my mind forever. I have seen these things. It is not something I read about in the Washington Post or the Times. This is not something that I saw on Peter Jennings. This is something I saw with my own eyes. Now, the close is this: We do not want to send American troops there. I do not want to send American troops there. I do not believe there are many people here who want to send American troops there. So if you are not going to send American troops, should you not give the Bosnians, the Moslems, and also the Croats the opportunity to defend themselves? Their moms and dads are being killed. Imagine, put yourself in their role. There you are in a little village of east Mostar. The murderers are coming in. Your wife is in the basement, your children are down in the basement, maybe your mom is, and you cannot defend yourself. You know NATO is not coming in. You do not want the United States to send troops in. All you want is for the arms embargo to be lifted, whereby you can defend yourself. I have been in the Holocaust Museum over Christmas. I took my family. We saw the letters where during World War II people said no, these things were not happening. Believe me slaughter and genocide are occurring. The gentleman from Michigan mentioned rape. We had hearings in the Helsinki Commission that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] can talk about, 20,000 women have been raped. This is a good amendment. It is a good amendment on this bill. It is a good amendment on any bill. It is an amendment that will send a message, [[Page H5718]] so when they listen on their little crystal radio sets tonight or tomorrow, they will hear that the U.S. Congress has voted to lift the arms embargo, to stand with them. If this amendment passes, believe me, I do not know how I am going to vote on this bill. I am going back and forth. But if this amendment passes, boy, I will support this bill with greater vigor.