Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

1A) Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 2002
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in September of 1862, in a sun-drenched cornfield near the Mason-Dixon Line, a devastation called Antietam happened. Twelve thousand young Americans on each side perished. Antietam is a name forever soaked in blood. It has come to symbolize the tragic nature of a domestic conflict called the Civil War--or the War Between the States.

   Now this Nation is challenged once again by war on our own shores. Another tragic loss of life on another sunny morning in the September of another century has recalled for us the special trauma of war on our homeland. This time the violence on our own land has roots in a cultural clash of worldwide proportions. It is, at once, a war at home and a war abroad.

   While we must fight on both fronts, these are conflicts of a very different nature. The brave men and women who serve in our military volunteer for that duty. They have the unquestioned support of the American people and, through the American people, of their Government. They fight aided by technology which is the envy of the world. Our military personnel accept and understand the discipline imposed on them while they serve for the cause of freedom. The weapons of destruction which engage them are easily discernible and their lethal potential is well understood.

   The war on our own shores is much more complex. We know that terrorists live among us and that they traverse our open borders with relative ease. We know the new enemy among us prefers weapons fashioned from the ordinary infrastructure of modern life--trucks, trains, planes, mail delivery systems, ports, energy sources, cyberspace, spent nuclear material. All of these, we are told, can be easily adapted to cause death and destruction, fear and panic. At home, our technology is deficient, with outdated computers in key government agencies unable to easily transmit vital information back and forth. In April and May, the Appropriations Committee heard testimony that indicate that our adversaries could cripple the U.S. economy without great difficulty or enormous cost. Yet we do not know much more. We do not know where this new shadowy enemy will strike, or when.

   Within the past few weeks, the concern seems to have grown. The Vice President has warned that a strike is ``almost certain.'' Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has stated that it is inevitable that terrorists will acquire weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of State Colin Powell has warned that ``terrorists are trying every way they can'' to get nuclear , chemical, or biological weapons. Security has been tightened around New York City landmarks. The FBI has warned that sites, such as the Statue of Liberty and Brooklyn Bridge, might be attacked.

   With all of these warnings in mind, and with a realization of the many gaps in our homeland security network, the men and women of this Congress have an obligation to take immediate steps to protect American lives and to try to prevent future tragedies such as the one we witnessed last September.

   After several days of hearings by the Senate Appropriations Committee on the urgent supplemental request for defense and homeland security, what emerges is a picture of a nation conflicted. While united in the goal of fighting terrorism, we are conflicted about how to do so, how to go about it.

   Finite resources must be stretched to fulfill the mission of a military on a worldwide hunt for terrorists and a less defined, but just as urgent, need to protect our people here at home, which must be executed by layers of bureaucrats responding to hundreds, if not thousands, of vulnerabilities.

   When the North wrestled the South for the soul of this Nation in the 19th century, America stood at a crossroads. Then, as now, transcendent and solid leadership was essential to our ultimate success.

   In the 1860s, this Nation was blessed, as it often has been in its brief history, with a gifted leader, able to quiet the squabbling generals and calm the bureaucratic struggles that threatened to consume his single-minded effort to preserve the Nation and restore the peace. Abraham Lincoln was a giant. He saved the Nation.

   But what we as leaders are now faced with may well be without parallel in U.S. history. I say that because the events surrounding September 11 have underscored a revolutionary blurring of the lines between domestic danger and international danger for our people. We can no longer sit safely in our large and prosperous country, confident that we need not fear foreign attack. True, our military might on the battlefield is the envy of the world, but the enemy now lives and works among us.

   He is here. He crosses our borders with relative ease. He boards our airplanes. He rides our trains and hides in our ships. No longer is the enemy only on a far away and distant foreign shore.

   The question for all of the leaders of this Government is, Can we adapt? Can we restructure where we need to do so? Can we even fully comprehend at this point the intertwining nature of the dual conflict in which we find ourselves? Can we sustain military action on so many fronts and not shortchange a defense of the homeland? Can we be steady enough to know that, even if public attention strays from the dangers here at home, our attention must not stray from the dangers here at home? In many cases, the answers come down to funding questions.

   The Senate Appropriations Committee is doing its part. Senator Stevens and I are proud of our record on homeland defense. Last fall, we approved $10 billion for homeland defense programs, $4 billion more than had been requested by the President, and that $4 billion has made a difference.

   Over 2,200 more INS border agents and Customs inspectors are being hired on the northern and southern borders; the Immigration and Naturalization Service is now implementing a system for tracking foreign students in this country; our police, fire, and medical personnel are getting better training, better equipment for detecting and responding to potential biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks; the FBI is hiring hundreds of new agents; 750 more food inspectors and investigators are being hired; the number of ports with Food and Drug Administration investigators is being doubled; 324 additional protective personnel are being hired to protect our nuclear weapons complex. Additional resources are being spent on efforts to destroy or secure nuclear materials overseas.

   However, a great deal remains to be done. In recent weeks, the Appropriations Committee in the Senate held a series of hearings on homeland defense. Senator Stevens and I joined in identifying and inviting the witnesses. We heard from terrorism experts about the continuing threat to our Nation. We heard from Governors. We heard from mayors. We heard from first responders--our police, fire, and medical personnel. They all testified to a continuing need for resources to expand our capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to terrorist attacks.

   We also took testimony from seven Cabinet officers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Our former colleagues, Sam Nunn and Warren Rudman, testified on the very real threat this Nation faces. The compelling message from our witnesses was that we need to do more and that we need to do more now. They also stressed the need for better Federal coordination and clearer standards for such efforts as securing our ports and making sure we have interoperable equipment that will allow our first responders to communicate with each other.

   The legislation before the Senate today, which totals $31 billion, fully funds the President's $14 billion request for defense programs. It provides over $8.3 billion for homeland defense programs. It provides $5.5 billion to augment the Federal response to New York City in response to the events of September 11. It approves $1 billion for the Pell grant shortfall. It includes $417 million for veterans' medical care. In addition, the bill includes $1.1 billion of mandatory spending for the Veterans Compensation and Pension Program.

   This bill contains $8.3 billion for critical homeland security efforts, efforts that we should not delay until the next fiscal year or the next calendar year.

   Within the homeland security package, more than $1 billion is directed to first responder programs. These are the people at the local level. They are the people who would be first on the scene. This funding will help to address those gaps that can endanger lives in case of an emergency.

   For instance, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has received grant requests from 18,000 fire departments across the country, requests that total more than $3 billion. The Senate legislation would begin to address this critical need for training and equipment. So we have equipment funds providing $300 million for our firefighters.

   Another $200 million is in the legislation to improve the ability for first responders to talk with each other. Currently, too many local police and fire departments have radio systems that are incompatible. They simply cannot talk with each other when responding to a crisis.

   The Appropriations Committee has included funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish uniform standards for interoperable equipment. We had several witnesses who testified to the need for such.

   Recently, the Brookings Institution released a report critiquing the administration's homeland defense strategy. One of the report's authors, Michael O'Hanlon, stated that the threat posed by terrorists using cargo containers entering our seaports ``may be our single greatest vulnerability that we have not yet made much progress towards addressing in this country.'' We heard from several witnesses to this need.

   To take steps to address this danger, the committee has provided $666 million for the Coast Guard for port and maritime security. This funding would expedite vulnerability assessments at our Nation's ports. It would expand the number of port strike teams trained to respond to biological, chemical, and radiation incidents. It would create two new maritime safety and security teams and purchase homeland security response boats, and it would expand surface and aviation assets, as well as the shore facilities to support them.

   Two hundred million dollars is included for port security grants. Fifty seven million dollars is provided to the Customs Service to improve cargo container inspections overseas, and $28 million is included to improve our technology on inspecting cargo containers.

   We cannot ignore looming gaps in our homeland security efforts. These gaps were exposed during those hearings. The committee listened. The committee has acted. The committee is going to do something about the problems that were brought to our attention by the witnesses who came before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

   That is why this legislation provides $387 million for bioterrorism, including funds to improve our toxicology and infectious disease lab capacity at the Centers for Disease Control.

   Our committee, the Senate Appropriations Committee, is responding to the needs of the country as expressed by the men and women who appeared recently before the Senate Appropriations Committee in those very important hearings. Congress has approved a $3 billion bioterrorism response authorization bill. This funding will move us toward meeting that bill's goal.

   The supplemental bill provides $200 million for security at our nuclear weapons facilities and nuclear labs. The bill provides $154 million for cyber-security with a special emphasis on helping the private sector defend itself from attack.

   No witness before that committee was more impressive than the distinguished Senator from Utah, BOB BENNETT, who testified as to the need for the private sector to be prepared against attack. He emphasized the dangers that confront the Nation. So the committee has responded by, as I say, appropriating $154 million for cyber-security.

   Then there is in the bill $125 million for border security, including resources for Immigration and Naturalization Service facilities on the borders of the Nation, and for deploying the system for rapid response criminal background checks to 30 more ports.

   The bill provides $100 million for nuclear nonproliferation programs. The bill provides $265 million for airport security, including $100 million to help airports meet the new Federal standards for airport security.

   The bill before the Senate provides $200 million to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for food safety labs, additional food inspectors, and for vulnerability assessments for rural water systems.

   The bill before the Senate provides $100 million for the EPA to complete vulnerability assessments on the security of our water systems.

   The bill before the Senate today provides $286 million for other homeland defense items such as Secret Service efforts to combat electronic crime, FBI counterterrorism efforts, and funds for the Justice Department to develop an integrated information system.

   The bill fully funds the President's $4.4 billion request for the new transportation security administration.

   The bill includes $1.95 billion for international programs. We have included $200 million for Israel and $50 million for disaster assistance for the Palestinians.

   The legislation contains $1.069 billion for nonemergency programs, with offsets to pay for them. The major items include $450 million for election reform grants, $100 million

   for the global AIDS trust fund, and $75 million for WIC. The bill also provides $110 million for flood relief and $55 million for Amtrak repairs and security.

   I could go on, but Senators and the American people already know we are vulnerable, and in many instances they know where we are vulnerable: Anthrax, smallpox, dirty bombs, border security, nuclear labs, powerplants, cyber-security, food safety, airport security, drinking water.

   So we do understand the gaps in our security structures. If we know where those gaps are, we can be sure terrorists know where they are.

   Many decisions, large and small, lie ahead. One thing is certain: We cannot afford delay. So I urge Senators to offer amendments, debate, vote, and help members of the Appropriations Committee expedite this much-needed assistance for our Nation. We say, ``May God bless America,'' but we can do a lot to help God to bless America.

   We must quickly enact this bipartisan effort to bolster our weaknesses, address our shortfalls, and protect American lives.

   I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DORGAN). The clerk will call the roll.

   The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

1B) Report on Congressional Delegation to Moscow
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues tonight to talk about what we have seen in a part of the world that has vexed American policy makers for generations.

First I want to commend Chairman WELDON for his high-energy, unyielding approach to seeing as much as possible on these delegation trips. Our focus is always on bringing back information that will enlighten and inform U.S. policy makers, both in the Congress and in the Administration.

At this difficult moment in the world, our trip was a good opportunity to speak to our legislative colleagues in the Russian Duma. We arrived in Moscow in the wake of the historic signing of the strategic arms reduction treaty by Presidents Bush and Putin. While we were there, NATO nations met in Rome to agree to limited membership for Russian in NATO, India and Pakistan danced dangerously close to a nuclear confrontation, the cycle of violence continued between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and the war on terrorism continued in Afghanistan. So there was a great deal on our plate with which to deal.

We last went to Russia in September 2001, after the attacks on the United States and after the war began, and came away with a real partnership with many of our colleagues in the Russian Duma. We began then to talk about areas of commonality through which members of our respective legislatures (the U.S. Congress and the Russian Duma) could work. In our last visit, we presented a document entitled: ``U.S.-Russia Partnership.'' In our visit this time around, we were told that our document's recommendations were the basis for the Russian initiatives presented to President Bush during his recent visit in Russia. Discussions in Russia generally followed concerns such as: combating international terrorism, using academics and science to address political problems, joint environmental--and economic--efforts, and engaging young people of both countries in issues of mutual interest (such as sports and cultural events).

Russia is an important strategic partner for the United States and for NATO. After entering the 21st Century through columns of fire, our relationship with Russia is on a considerably stronger foundation. For the first time, there is mutual agreement on goals and values, and on a shared vision for the security threats we both face in this world. When we met with Uzbekistani President Karimov, I was impressed with the geopolitical environment of the region. He, too, supported Chairman WELDON'S proposal to establish a joint U.S. Congress-Uzbek parliamentary working group, based on the success of the U.S. Congress-Duma work of last year.

The best part of being in Uzbekistan was seeing the satisfaction on the faces of the young men and women serving in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. They are the ones carrying our battle to our enemies, and they are gung-ho about their mission. We got a good deal of intelligence on the ground--literally--intelligence about the daily activities of our troops and how they see their jobs every day. We had the privilege of distributing homemade cookies baked by people here at home for these brave men and women. They very much enjoyed the special gifts from home.

As always, I saw a host of Texans stationed in Uzbekistan doing then-duty for the United States, including Specialist Harwig from Corpus Christi, Texas. We also went to Beijing, China, to talk with senior officials about a host of defense-related and economic-related topics. With China, as always, the topic of Taiwan was paramount in the minds of the Chinese. They continually expressed the importance of the ``one-China'' policy. We emphasized the wide breath of things on which the United States and China agree, and urged both nations to find agreement rather than disagreement. Several members of our delegation surmised that the issue of Taiwan will diminish as a divisive issue over time due to the large--and increasing--investment by Taiwan interests in mainland China. India and Pakistan are adjoining neighbors, and the nuclear saber-rattling in the subcontinent is unnerving all the nations of the world ..... most noticeably the Chinese. Both nations are China's neighbors, and they continue to hope the difference over Kashmir can be solved peacefully. This is no place for a hair-trigger on a nuclear weapon.

The CODEL also met with members of the government of the Republic of Korea (ROK, South Korea) and thanked the ROK for their prompt and significant support for the United States after 9-11. The ROK stepped up quickly to support our war against the Taliban and al Queda in Afghanistan, providing shipping, aircraft and a field hospital to support U.S. operations in the area.

We were particularly disappointed that the North Koreans refused to meet with us. The ROK, we were told by the foreign ministry, continues to talk of peace with North Korea, but the pace of discussions was extraordinarily slow. Chiefly, discussions with the ROK centered on trade, U.S. forces in Korea in the DMZ, our war on terrorism, political and military stability on the Korean Peninsula, and the strong desire--on their part--for reunification. We even had significant discussions about internet voting in the ROK, ``E'' government initiatives, and the digital divide in the ROK.

There are also a number of Texans serving in uniform as we visited the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The DMZ never ceases to amaze me ..... it stands as a tribute to the standoff between ideologies along the Pacific Rim, and on the south side of it is the best reason for the conflict in the first place: democracy and free commerce in the highly developed south, with the north side practicing communism and starving their citizens and their economy.

Our trip proved, once again, the importance of going beyond our borders to see first hand, and hear first hand, the particular situations in the nations of our friends and those whom we hope to make our friends.

1C) Bipartisan Trip to Russia, China, Uzbekistan and North Korea
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I will perhaps not take the entire hour, but I want to take this opportunity to review a recent congressional delegation trip that I led over the Memorial Day recess.

   Mr. Speaker, this was a historic trip, and one that has laid the groundwork for, I think, some future historic activities for this Nation in a number of areas. The trip was to basically countries involving Russia, a visit to Moscow and then on to Tashkent, Uzbekistan; on to Beijing, China; Seoul, Korea; visiting military sites along the way. And the only disappointment of our trip was that we

[Page: H3220]

[Time: 19:00]

   Unfortunately, despite our best efforts to try throughout the entire trip, we were not successful, and I will talk about that effort over the next several minutes.

   The bipartisan delegation consisted of 13 Members of the House. We had 7 Democrats and 6 Republicans. The delegation represented almost every one of our major committees in the Congress, but had a heavy emphasis of the Committee on Armed Services. The delegation was interested in a number of issues, but in particular cooperative threat reduction, ways that we could decrease the threat posed by nuclear weapons and stockpiles, ways that we could retrain, help retrain those individuals, especially in Russia, that were involved in nuclear and weapons activities, issues involving counterproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and ways that we could work with former Soviet states and other nations to continue our counterproliferation efforts, dealing with the issue of nuclear waste and contamination and other environmental issues, energy production and distribution, cooperative efforts in the war on terrorism, Sino-American relations, and North and South Korean relations.

   In addition to meetings that we had formally, we met with a number of our military troops and I will talk about some of the findings that we came away with as we visited troops throughout the region.

   Mr. Speaker, we left Washington a week ago this past Friday on May 24, and traveled initially to Moscow. In Moscow, we were met by both our embassy officials and other Russia leaders that had been advised of our visit. On the first day, despite a very long trip, we spent some time with our embassy officials and got a briefing on an American company that is based in the district of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown). The gentlewoman of suggested that we visited with officials of the Atari Corporation, which we did, and got an overview of the kinds of activities that they are involved with, including the presence of that company here in America.

   We continued our visit over the weekend with a trip to the American University in Moscow, an institution that was started over 10 years ago. Their director assembled a group of academics and leaders in the educational area, and briefed us on a whole new series of initiatives relative to the training and education of young Russian leaders with American institutions, and in this case the American University in Moscow.

   We have a continuing dialogue with the American University, and in fact the exchange process has already started in terms of cooperation on academic programs with the American University.

   Also on Sunday we met with the leadership of the Kurchatov Institute. Dr. Evgheny Velikhov is the head of Kurchatov. Kurchatov is the largest and most prestigious nuclear institute in Russia, named after its founder, who was the developer of the atomic weapon for the Soviet Union. Today Kurchatov, which is smaller than it was in the Soviet era, has a number of nuclear scientists that are in need of work. Part of the efforts of our government through the Department of Energy and the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program has been to find ways to have those nuclear scientists and weapons scientists work in a productive way for both Russian and American corporations, and take them away from the former work that they did, which was all military-related.

   Our discussions with Kurchatov centered around a number of very specific projects and programs, programs that involve American corporations, American NGOs, and American governmental entities. They were very positive meetings, and we discussed everything from fusion energy, disposition of fissile materials, nuclear sites, clean fuel cycles, magnetic fusion, low-yield nuclear warheads, ballistic missile defense interceptors, and a number of other issues. We came away with a number of ideas of how we can further engage the folks at Kurchatov in a cooperative way to benefit both the United States and Russian people peacefully.

   In addition to that meeting, we met with leaders of the petroleum industry and the oil and gas industry in Russia, and talked about the efforts of many of us to steer America away from our reliance on Middle Eastern crude, and to work with the Russians, who have huge deposits of energy, to allow us to help them develop that energy, thereby giving us a new source of fossil fuels and gas, reducing our dependency on Middle Eastern crude, and at the same time helping Russia grow its economy. Those meetings were very positive, and I think will be fruitful in the future.

   In addition, at that meeting, I invited the North Korean commercial attache in Moscow, Mr. Ku Song Bok, to attend an evening event with us. I did that as a gesture of good faith toward the North Korean government, the DPRK government, to show them that this delegation was interested in starting a positive initiative to work to establish a framework for discussion between the leaders

   in DPRK and those of us in the Congress that want to pursue this new avenue of dialogue with North Korea's leaders, both their president or chairman, as well as the members of their high parliament.

   Mr. Speaker, we also had meetings with the Moscow and the Russian Duma. The Duma is the lower body of the Russian parliament, the Federation Council the other body. In our meetings, we had probably some 40 Duma deputies and Federation Council members interact with us. We had a number of discussions relating to a variety of issues. But the key issue was a document that many of us in this body produced last fall, a document that I have addressed on this floor in the past.

   This document, 45 pages long with 108 specific recommendations, was prepared to provide President Bush and President Putin a new format for relations between our two nations, with 11 key areas involving energy, the environment, health care, local government, culture and education, science and technology, agriculture, and defense and security, among others; recommendations that we could undertake to bring the Russian people and the American people, Russian institutions and American institutions, closer together.

   This document, as I have explained to my colleagues in the past, was given to both President Bush and President Putin over the signatures of over one-third of the House and the Senate, members of both political parties equally divided, signed on to say to our President before the most recent summit that we want to change the nature of our relationship with Russia.

   Perhaps one of the highlights of our trip, Mr. Speaker, was during a lunch that we had on Monday afternoon, two of the top leaders of the Russian Duma both said publicly that the Russian approach to the most recent Bush-Putin summit was largely based on this document.

   This was significant because this was the first time that Russia publicly acknowledged that the work of our Congress and our Senate in producing this document actually was the basis for the Russian lead-up to the summit between President Bush and President Putin. We knew that they had taken this document seriously because they had produced a document in Russian in response to what we had produced. This document is the Russian Academy of Sciences' response to our proposal for these new initiatives.

   My understanding is that the Academy of Sciences is setting up 11 task forces to work on the specific areas that we identified as key areas for America and Russia to work together. So our meetings in Moscow were extremely fruitful. They were positive. They were building on the success of President Bush and President Putin for a new relationship that in fact is much broader and much more engaging than our past relationship, which was largely based on agreements of strategic weapons.

   The contention here by many in this body is for us to have even greater success in strategic and defense issues, we have to work aggressively to build more confidence.

[Page: H3221]

   One other interesting offer made by the Russians at our final luncheon meeting in Moscow, Mr. Speaker, I bring forward to this body and ask for our consideration and help, and it shows the state and the change of our relationship. Ten years ago a meeting between Russian officials and American officials would probably have had some screaming and shouting and accusations against each other. Our meetings today are totally changed. Over the past 10 years we have established a major new positive dialogue so that the last discussion we had before we left Moscow and in the spirit of the goodwill games currently being held in Japan and South Korea was a challenge by our Russian Duma colleagues to have a series of athletic events between members of the Duma and Members of the House.

   So, Mr. Speaker, I challenge our colleagues to work with me, having played in a number of congressional baseball games where our Democrat teams play our Republican teams and we raise money for charity, and being aware of our congressional basketball games and our golf matches where Republicans play Democrats and other events, we now have a new challenge. Members of the Russian Duma have challenged this body to a series of athletic contests in the spirit of goodwill both in Moscow and Washington, where we can get together and have some friendly fun and also agree to a series of what hopefully will become annual events between the leaders of two parliaments.

   Mr. Speaker, I look forward to establishing a task force on the American side, hopefully comprised equally of Democrats and Republicans. We will look at what types of competition we want to have because some that we would do would be favorable to America, some the Russians might want to do would be favorable to them. We want to find the middle ground. We will start a whole new era of cooperation in the same spirit that we have in this city in basketball and baseball and other competitions between

   our two parties. In the spirit of friendship and goodwill, we will now take the same atmosphere to our colleagues in the Russian Duma.

   Mr. Speaker, we left Moscow on Monday afternoon and flew again on military transport to Tashkent, Uzbekistan. We wanted to visit Uzbekistan because it is a prominent former Soviet state, a Central Asian nation that has stepped up and played a critical role in our battle against terrorism. In that country, after having met with the officials of the Uzbeki embassy here in Washington, we were greeted with a meeting with President Karimov. It was an extremely positive, 2-hour meeting as we discussed a new level of cooperation with Uzbekistan, efforts to bring more focus on the Central Asian nations, and to thank the people of Uzbekistan for allowing America to use a base in their country with the cooperation of their military to fight the war on terrorism.

   In fact, when we met with President Karimov, as we did in our meeting with the foreign minister, Mr. Kamilov, our U.S. embassy country team, we also extended an invitation through members of their parliament to establish a bilateral parliamentary exchange, much like we started with the Russian Duma. We now challenged the Uzbekistan parliament to establish a formal relationship between the House and the parliament, the lower body, actually the only body in Uzbekistan. They accepted overwhelmingly, and very eagerly anticipate the first meetings of the delegation that will start an annual series of meetings both in Tashkent and Moscow to find ways to work closer together with the people of Uzbekistan.

   Our ultimate goal is to produce a document similar to this document, outlining ways that we can bring the people and the institutions of Uzbekistan closer to the people and institutions of America.

   In addition to our visit with the President and the foreign minister, which were separate meetings, we traveled to one of our primary military bases in Uzbekistan at Karshi-Khanabad, more commonly known as K-2. This military base is down fairly close to the Afghan border. We have right now approximately 3,000 troops at that site. They are doing a variety of work, and represented most of the services.

   The purpose of our visit was to assess the spirit and morale of our troops, and to let them know how proud we are of their work. In fact, we carried with us almost 7,000 cards and letters from school children across America who are writing to individual members of our military to thank them for the services that they are providing to our country. We also took from my home State of Pennsylvania cases of TastyKakes and Hershey bars, and boxes of homemade cookies made by individuals and families and the spouses of Members of Congress to give to the troops to thank them from the people back home for the job that they are doing.

[Time: 19:15]

   I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the morale of our troops at the K-2 base was unbelievably positive. The morale was so evident in everyone that we met with. Their needs are being met. They obviously would like to be home with their families, but they are there to do a mission, they understand that mission, and they are committed to follow through and complete the task assigned to them by our President and by our military command officers.

   We did have a problem with one of the engines on our cargo plane that took us into the K-2 base. While I bring up this not to embarrass our military, I bring it up to show that we are having success because the starter would not work on one of our engines as we prepared to leave. But because we have taken great efforts in this body to provide additional funds for spare parts and training, and that has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans, within 2 hours a spare part was made available and the men and women of the unit in K-2 were able to replace that so that we could take off in time to make our meeting with President Karimov back in Tashkent.

   So our military, in fact, is doing a fantastic job. We are proud of them, and we were there to say thank you on behalf of not only Congress and the House but all America. Following our 1-day trip to Tashkent, having achieved our objectives to work with the President and a commitment to follow on with the parliament of that nation, we traveled and arrived late at night in Beijing, China, starting on May 29.

   In the People's Republic of China, in Beijing, we met with President Jiang Zemin, a very historic opportunity for us to meet with the top leader of the People's Republic. The meeting was extremely interesting because President Jiang spoke to us not just in Chinese but also in English, which showed the level of comfort that he had with our delegation. He was very much interested in hearing our views. He put forth his commitment to work with America in trying to provide some stability in the current conflict between India and Pakistan, and he reiterated his commitment to work with us to provide peace for the world.

   We discussed the issue of Taiwan. We heard his strong feelings toward that independent entity, and we again reaffirmed to President Jiang that we are committed to a one-China policy, and we are committed to the peaceful process of bringing China and Taiwan together. We also reiterated the fact that the Congress would not tolerate any armed hostilities in an attempt to bring Taiwan back in, and he assured us that that was not China's intent, that they were certainly totally committed to a peaceful resolution of the independent status of the two nations so they in fact could become one China again.

   In addition to those meetings, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) had been in China for approximately 4 days. They were a part of the delegation but did not formally join us until we arrived and they had been there in advance. They were there for a very historic purpose and opportunity. Mr. Speaker, they went to a suburban city outside of Beijing. The purpose of their visit with a group of UPS officials was to help build a new school for a small Chinese community to bring the Internet and computers to that village and to that institution. As we all know, China's income level for their average person in that country is about $300 per year. So when you get outside of Beijing and Shanghai, there is not much in the way of modern technology.

[Page: H3222]

   UPS, United Parcel Service, with 40 of their employees and two Members of Congress, set up a process to build a new school, which they did, and to equip that school with computers for the children that live in this community. It was an outstanding success and, in fact, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) on the day after that we met with President Jiang Zemin, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the three of them were given an audience with Premier Zhu Rongji. President Zhu expressed his thanks to the people of America, to UPS and to our three Members of Congress for their outstanding work in helping to provide this new resource for the children of the community in China known as Zunhua.

   Mr. Speaker, also in China we met with the Deputy Foreign Minister Zhou. It was a very positive meeting regarding economic reforms in China. He gave us an overview of the economic program that is in place. We talked about how America and China must work together to open new markets for American companies to allow that balance of trade to become more equal. He talked to us specifically about Taiwan, and we discussed again as we did with President Jiang Zemin the need for us to have a peaceful dialogue and a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan-China situation.

   We were hosted on our visit to China by the Chinese People's Institute for Foreign Affairs. President Mei was our host. He had a luncheon arranged for us. In fact, the discussion there was broad ranging and discussed everything from economic cooperation to advancements in science and technology. It was very positive, and again they were the host that allowed us to arrange the meetings that took place in China.

   Mr. Speaker, one of the highlights for me of our trip to China was the opportunity for me to speak for the second time at the National Defense University of the People's Liberation Army. It was a real eye opener. I had spoken at this university back 5 years ago. I believe I was the first elected official invited to speak at what is the premier military training institution for their mid- and senior-level officers. This invitation came before I went to Beijing to again address senior military officers in the PLA.

   What was interesting about this trip was that it was not just me going to the National Defense University. In fact, eight of our colleagues who were with the delegation went with me. We drove for about 1 hour out of downtown Beijing until we arrived at the compound that is the major training site for China's mid- and senior-level officers. On the way, we talked to our defense attache who briefed us on what to expect. He

   told us to expect the Chinese officers to have canned questions, not to have any ability to go off the party line, and to be very stern and strict in terms of the way that they asked questions of me once I had finished my presentation.

   Mr. Speaker, I told our defense attache on the way in that I was going to do something different this time, that I was going to break this large group of officers into subgroups and have Members of Congress directly interact with them. Our defense attache said, ``That will never happen. The Chinese will never go for that. They are not used to doing things in an ad hoc way.''

   Mr. Speaker, what a great surprise we had in store for us. When our bus arrived at the front door of the main building of the National Defense University, after having driven through the entranceway, there was a full Chinese PLA military band and orchestra. In fact, it was all female, all dressed up in their military uniforms, which were white in color; and there they were playing for us a series of military musical selections, welcoming us to the premier training center for the Chinese military. As we departed the bus and walked up the stairway, a number of generals and top leaders greeted us to welcome us to the National Defense University. It certainly was a good start to our meeting.

   Inside, I was taken aside and allowed to meet with the general in charge of the National Defense University, where I explained to him that following my presentation, which would last about 40 minutes, instead of me answering questions, I wanted to divide the group up and allow Members of Congress to directly interact with the soldiers and leaders of the Chinese military. He looked at me in some bewilderment, but did not object.

   So we went into the room, and there in the auditorium were some 300 senior military leaders of the Chinese People's Liberation Army. As they sat in the room and were extremely attentive, I was introduced, and I made my presentation which I did not have in writing but basically gave from my own feelings about the need to improve our relations with China, and I went through the entire context of why we were there. I discussed the meeting we had had with President Jiang Zemin, and I challenged them to help us find new areas of common concern where we could bring our military together with the Chinese military to reduce the potential for conflict and misunderstanding.

   Mr. Speaker, following my presentation, I told the assembled group that I wanted to divide them up into four groups and have two Members of Congress each set aside with those individual groups and have a dialogue. Within 5 minutes, the group divided itself into four, the Members of Congress broke up into groups of two, we had interpreters at each group, and for the next 45 minutes, something happened that I would never have thought could occur. American Members of Congress were interacting not in a formal way but informally in answering questions and asking questions of the next generation of Chinese military leaders.

   Mr. Speaker, I must tell you, the comments were all positive. The tone was positive. And there were no canned questions or canned responses. It was an absolutely unbelievable opportunity to see American Members of Congress, our colleagues, interacting in an informal, sit-down way with Chinese military leaders around them in kind of a small-group setting asking questions and responding about American-China relations.

   Mr. Speaker, this gave me a great deal of encouragement and leads me to believe that we must do more of this. We must continue to reach out, to tear down the barriers of misunderstanding and find ways to engage and be candid in the process where we have disagreements but also let these people know that we want

   to be friendly with them. We are not looking to have animosity or tension, but rather find ways that we can address common concerns together.

   Mr. Speaker, leaving China, we had planned to go into North Korea. Unfortunately, all along the way, despite numerous attempts, we were getting nowhere with the DPRK leadership. In fact, I even at one point in time, one morning in Beijing had a call from Kofi Annan at the U.N., whom I had asked to assist us. Kofi Annan from the U.N., the Secretary-General, and five other groups were working aggressively with us to convince the DPRK leadership that it was in their best interest that this delegation be allowed in, not to criticize the North Korean leaders but to begin a dialogue, to talk, to try to break down the barriers and discuss common areas of concern and opportunity. Unfortunately, that was not to be.

   But throughout our trip in Moscow, again in Uzbekistan and throughout our stay in China, we sent faxes, e-mails, telephone calls, had meetings with representatives of groups that were working in North Korea but were not having success, so finally we decided to leave Beijing and travel directly to South Korea. In Seoul, South Korea, our first stop was at the Yongsan U.S. Army air base. There we spent time with the troops. They were having a picnic on Saturday afternoon. We visited with the family members. We thanked them for the work they are doing, and we spent time letting them know that we wanted to hear about the concerns that they had being stationed in that country.

   Mr. Speaker, this is something that we heard throughout our stop in South Korea with all of our military: this body and the other body and the Pentagon has got to do more to increase the pay level, to provide more incentives and decrease the amount of time that our troops have to spend when they are assigned to South Korea. We learned from our military leaders, from our top generals, and from our CINC in

[Page: H3223]

   Mr. Speaker, as you well know, we have 37,000 troops in South Korea. It is a major location for our troops overseas. This Congress has got to respond by changing the way that we are currently operating so that young people who are serving in Korea can bring their families with them, because today the bulk of them cannot get the pay level they should get when they serve in other parts of the world, and find ways to reduce the level of commitment in terms of the time they have to serve there. The commanding officers in that theater understand what steps they have to take.

   And so our delegation came back to America convinced that we are going to work to commit to that military to change those requirements, to change those support mechanisms, so that our military when it is assigned to South Korea does so with pride, wants to go there, and does not feel that being assigned to South Korea is the least possible priority that they would have as a part of their military career and tenure.

   Mr. Speaker, we spent time with Ambassador Hubbard. He gave us an overview of Korea. We had an in-team briefing with our leaders, both on South Korea, and they also gave us a briefing on the North.

[Time: 19:30]

   We talked about the upcoming elections. We were scheduled to meet with the candidates for the presidency, but because they were off campaigning with elections coming up next week, we were not able to have those meetings. We did meet with Foreign Minister Choi. We met him at his home. We talked for over 1 hour about our relations between the South and America, and we talked about our interests in going to the DPRK, or North Korea.

   He, along with the Japanese, along with the Chinese, along with the Russians and the Uzbekistanis, all said that our intent to go to North Korea is extremely important. President Jiang Zemin encouraged us to pursue entrance to North Korea, the leadership in Moscow encouraged us to pursue our entry into North Korea, and so did the South Koreans. That was articulated by the foreign minister of South Korea. We talked about programs that we have together between our two nations, and we talked about ways that we could work even closer together, assuming we can break down the barrier by gaining entrance into North Korea.

   Mr. Speaker, we met with Members of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea. We talked about the importance of our forces there. They are unequivocal in saying that they want America to maintain a presence. It is extremely important to deter conflict on the peninsula.

   We talked about cooperation in the war on terrorism, political and military stability in the Korean peninsula, the strong desire for unification of the two Koreas, and we talked about e-government and the need to bring our government and their governments into the new digital divide and the way we can in fact bring information technology to all the people in South Korea.

   We also met with the Senior Combatant Commander for United Nations Command Forces, General Leon LaPorte, to get a detailed assessment of the current operations of the United Nations' efforts in South Korea.

   We had meetings with the American Chamber of Commerce in Seoul. They also told us that they had tried to take a delegation into North Korea. Mr. Speaker, they had had a group of American companies that are prepared to go to Pyong Yang and announced they were going to invest significant new dollars in North Korea. Despite being assured by the North Korean leadership that they would be given entrance, as they went to get their visas, they were told they were denied and they should come back later.

   It is extremely frustrating, Mr. Speaker, to try to open doors in a positive way with a regime so closeted and isolated from the rest of the world. So I appeal today, Mr. Speaker, that those leaders in the Democratic Republic of Korea, the DPRK, that they understand that we want to go to their country not to cause problems, not to blame, not to cast negative statements against them, but, rather, to simply open a dialogue, because having a dialogue is a way to eventually ease tensions and find ways to deal with common concerns and common opportunities.

   While also in South Korea, Mr. Speaker, the delegation was given an opportunity to travel to the DMZ, or Demilitarized Zone. Traveling up to Panmunjom, members were able to meet with our military once again, engage with the various military officials, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) took on a personal crusade to engage our military on the issue of the remains of Corporal Edward Gibson who has been missing in action since November 26, 1950.

   The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) raised the issue that so many Americans continue to be concerned about, the lack of a full accounting of those who are missing in action from the Korean conflict, the Korean

   War.

   As an indication of the support of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the honor that Corporal Gibson gave to his Nation by paying the ultimate price, he had an American flag flown over the DMZ in honor of Corporal Gibson. In fact, every member of Congress had the same flown. Corporal Gibson's family will be given that flag by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) back in Ohio.

   We discussed the issue with the leadership along the DMZ about that very hostile environment, perhaps the most tense environment today in the world, where American and North Korean forces and allied and North Korean forces stare each other down across this boundary line of barbed wire and concrete, that differentiates the North from the South. It really gives one a full perspective of the need, the absolute need, for us to find a way to begin a dialogue with the leadership of North Korea.

   Mr. Speaker, the delegation's trip was exciting. It was almost without flaw. Unfortunately, the final part of our mission, the trip into North Korea and Pyong Yang, did not occur. But, Mr. Speaker, we are not giving up. We are renewing our efforts.

   We have already started work on another visit. This visit will go into Pyong Yang, we will meet with their leaders and we will begin a positive dialogue, so we reduce the tensions and find ways that we can find common ground.

   Hopefully President Bush's envoy, Ambassador Pritchart, will travel to Pyong Yang very shortly to open the door that the administration has in fact offered, and following that visit, I am extremely optimistic that a congressional delegation that I will be a part of will travel to Pyong Yang in an historic way so we can begin a process, much like we began 15 years ago in the Soviet Union. Look at where we are today with Russia's leaders. Today, we have just completed a major thrust of new initiatives. We are challenging each other to athletic contests and we are now considered good friends.

   Hopefully that same process can occur and grow in China as we saw in our meetings at the National Defense University, and will also begin to grow in North Korea as we reach out to the people, as we reach out to show them that America wishes no harm, America only wants to find ways to understand, to have a dialogue, and to reduce the threats that come from the kind of actions that the North Korean leadership have taken over the past 20 years in building up a vast military complex, while denying many of their citizens the most basic human needs.

   Mr. Speaker, I will insert the entire CODEL report in the Congressional Record at this point, to make it available for the public to see all of the various actions I have described, the delegation members, the various contacts, the people that we interacted with, because I think it is important that we take these kinds of trips, and that we have total transparency in terms of our purpose, our actions, and the results that we achieved.

[Page: H3224]

   I want to thank all of my colleagues who went with me. It was an outstanding trip. We truly have an unbelievable institution. Thirteen members of Congress, seven Democrats and six Republicans, working together with a common agenda, working together to achieve peace and harmony, in those nations that in the past have been our adversaries, or in the future might become our adversaries.

   So I thank my colleagues for their cooperation, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the staff for sticking around long enough for me to make this report to our colleagues and the American people on the congressional delegation trip that took place from May 24 to June 3, 2002.

   U.S. Congressional Delegation (Codel Weldon) to Russia, Uzbekistan, Peoples Republic of China and Republic of Korea, May 24-June 3, 2002

   OVERVIEW

   A bipartisan congressional delegation of 13 Members of the House of Representatives, led by Representative Curt Weldon, ``CODEL WELDON,'' visited Moscow, Russia; Tashkent and Karshi-Khanabad, Uzbekistan; Beijing, China; Seoul, Yongsan (U.S. Army) Base, and the Demilitarized Zone, Republic of Korea, May 24 through June 3, 2002. The delegation also made considerable efforts prior to departure from Washington, D.C., to arrange meetings with the leadership of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). These efforts continued throughout the delegation's travel, to no avail. Given the major issues of mutual concern, the delegation was disappointed that the DPRK leadership did not accept the opportunity to open a dialogue and engage such a large delegation of the Congress.

   Delegation members included Representatives Curt Weldon (R-PA), Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Jim Turner (D-TX), Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Steve Horn (R-CA), Eni Faleomavaega (Del-American Samoa), Corrine Brown (D-FL), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Carrie Meek (D-FL), Steve Chabot (R-OH), and Brian Kerns (R-IN).

   In each of the countries visited, the delegation met with the senior executive branch and legislative branch officials; political leaders and organizations, educational groups and technical institute officials; U.S. and foreign military officers; and U.S. and foreign business leaders for the purpose of furthering greater communication; expanding inter-parliamentary exchanges and information sharing; and addressing common concerns on issues vital to international economic growth, human rights, peace and stability. Issues addressed included:

   
.Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR):

   --Securing nuclear stockpiles and materials in Russia.

   --Retraining human resources.

   
.Counterproliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction:

   --Protecting, reducing and/or Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction.

   
.Nuclear Waste and other environmental issues.

   
.Energy Production and Distribution.

   
.Cooperative Efforts in the War On Terrorism:

   --Furtherance of trade through better inspection methods at ports of debarkation and embarkation.

   
.Sino-American Relations.

   
.North and South Korean Relations.

   The Members also took the opportunity to visit with U.S. military personnel based in Karshi-Khanabad (``K-2''), Uzbekistan serving in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan; military personnel in Seoul and the DMZ; and their families in the Republic of Korea supporting peace and stability in Southeast Asia. Representatives Bartlett, Ortiz, Turner, Reyes, and Wilson visited Morale, Welfare, and Recreations sites and facilities in the Seoul area.

   The delegation visits coincided with a number of international events and crises that reinforced the critical nature and timeliness of the purpose of its meetings and discussions. The delegation arrived in Moscow the day following the historic signing of the strategic arms reduction treaty and declaration of strategic partnership by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir V. Putin. Shortly thereafter the NATO nations met in Rome and agreed to Russian limited membership in NATO. India and Pakistan experienced increased tension and cross-border firings resulting in casualties on both sides. Pakistan completed several medium range ballistic missile tests. The war on terrorism continued in Afghanistan. And suicide bombings and reprisals continued the cycle of violence between the Israelis and Palestinians.

   Moscow, Russia (May 25-27)

   State Duma

   In Moscow, the delegation had several opportunities to meet with their legislative counterparts, Members of the State Duma, in furtherance of the objectives of the Duma-Congress Study Group--the official interparliamentary exchange that engages U.S. and Russian lawmakers in meetings and discussions. The delegation also met with Russian business leaders, many of whom are involved in gas and oil exploration and energy production; Kurchatov Institute officials, to discuss energy and counterproliferation issues; and American University in Moscow officials.

   Discussions with Members of the State Duma were in furtherance of the issues address in ``U.S.-Russia Partnership,'' (see attachment 1), coauthored by Representative Weldon, supported by a bipartisan group of one-third of the U.S. Congress, and presented to the Duma in September of 2001, that provides over 100 recommendations in 11 subject areas for U.S.-Russian engagement. The delegation was advised by State Duma representatives that the recommendations made in this document had been used as the foundation for the Russian initiatives to President Bush during his visit. The State Duma Members indicated that the Speaker of the Duma had prepared a response to ``U.S.-Russia Partnership.'' Representative Weldon stated his desire to establish U.S.-Russia co-chairs at the earliest opportunity in each of 11 subject areas addressed in the study.

   International Republican & National Democratic Institutes

   A meeting sponsored by the International Republican Institute, with National Democratic Institute participation, allowed Member-to-Member/House-Duma dialogue on a number of subjects, including the status of the repeal of Jackson-Vanik (Cold War legislation that conditions U.S. trade relations on Russian Jewish emigration); combating international terrorism; using academic research and science to address political problems; joint environmental efforts; WTO; steel and poultry imports/exports; the Bush-Putin statement on the U.S.-Russian strategic partnership; and engaging the youth of both countries in issues of mutual interest, including cultural and sports events. Members on both sides demonstrated their belief that there is a new basis for working together on issues of common interest and concern because for the first time there is mutual agreement on goals and values and a sharing of vision on the security threats of the 21st Century.

   Kurchatov Institute

   The delegation also visited the Russian Research Center, the Kurchatov Institute. The Institute was established to design the Soviet Union's first nuclear weapons. Its current mission is research on safe and environmentally friendly nuclear fission and fusion power generation and fundamental physical research and development. The staff of the Institute is down to approximately 5,000 people from a Cold War high of 11,000. A goal of the Institute's Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) and counterproliferation programs has been to provide productive training and employment training and employment for many of the Institute's personnel. The Institute's President, Evgheny Velikhov, and his staff engaged the Members in briefings and discussions of counterproliferation; CTR; nuclear site physical security; disposition of fissile materials, fusion energy, nuclear medicine; safe, clean fuel cycles; magnetic fusion; electromagnetic pulse effects; low yield nuclear warhead, Russian-like, ballistic missile defense interceptors; a thorium-based nuclear fuel cycle (the Institute claims that the Department of Energy won't agree to consider programs that provide an alternative to Yucca Mountain); joint NAS-Institute programs for nuclear energy based space programs; software technologies for counter-terrorism; information technology training programs for former nuclear weapons scientists and engineers; and a visit to a nuclear power reactor being used for testing of thorium-based fuel.

   American University in Moscow

   The delegation also met with the staff and supporters of the American University in Moscow to demonstrate support for their program. Representative Weldon and the delegation were presented a copy of the ``Russian response'' to ``U.S.-Russia Partnership.'' Other discussion topics included the transportation of nuclear waste and initiation of U.S.-Russia Exchange Centers (information exchange using the internet) between cities in the U.S. and Russia.

   Moscow Petroleum Club

   The delegation met with senior Russian government officials, Members of the Federation Assembly, and business leaders from the oil and gas industry. Victor Chernomerdrin, the former Prime Minister, led the Russian delegation. Also included, at the request of the U.S. delegation, were KU Song Bok, commercial attaché of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, and his assistant, KIM Jong-Do.

   Tashkent & Karshi-Khanabad, Uzbekistan (May 27-28)

   In Tashkent, the delegation met with President Karimov; Foreign Minister Kamilov; the U.S. Embassy country team; and visited U.S. military personnel at Karshi-Khanabad. The delegation expressed to the President, U.S. appreciation for Uzbekistan's support for the war on terrorism. For his part, the President acknowledged his nation's shortcomings in human rights and economic reforms, but indicated he is taking actions in these areas in making reforms. The President provided an assessment of the regional geo-political environment and his views on the campaign in Afghanistan. He emphasized a desire for a long-term U.S. presence in Central Asia and Afghanistan and expressed a concern over the long-term intentions of Russia, Iran and particularly China. He was supportive of Representative Weldon's proposal to establish a joint U.S. Congress-Uzbek parliamentary working group. President Karimov sees the

[Page: H3225]

   American Embassy officials noted their concerns about the long term economic health of the country, citing the 50 percent inflation rate over the past year and the unwillingness of most foreign companies to invest in Uzbekistan because of the lack of convertability of the currency.

   The delegation was transported via an Air Force C-130 cargo aircraft to Karshi-Khanabad in southeastern Uzbekistan, near the Afghanistan border, to visit with U.S. forces personnel deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. All Members had an opportunity to meet with constituents and took the opportunity to make the military members fully aware of the total support of the American people for the job that they are all doing.

   The President, acknowledging fully ``what wars can cause on the main continent, briefly digressed, citing China's experience with a number of wars--``Japan against China''--and mentioned his personal participation in Japan's war against China. ``China and the U.S. were on the same side against Japan in Japan's War of Aggression.'' He further mentioned his visit to Hawaii and the Arizona War Memorial--``I shared the same feeling as your Commander of the Pacific Fleet. If you look at history and major events, you see history evolves in cycles. People unify then fall apart. Now Japan and the U.S. get along well ..... Maintenance of the imperial system in Japan had a lot to do with General MacArthur.''

   ``My advice to the U.S. is that not every place in the world can follow the U.S. model. In the world, each place has its own model, but that should not stop contacts and communication ..... The first principle should be to seek common ground while putting aside differences ..... Do not let differences interfere with communication ..... We have more in common than divergences.''

   Premier Zhu Rongii

   Representative Turner, accompanied by Representative Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and Arnie Welman, Vice President of Commercial Affairs for the UPS Corporation, met with Premier Zhu at the Purple Light Pavilion for over an hour.

   Representatives Turner and Bachus, along with Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) had participated in the construction of a computer laboratory with 40 UPS government affairs employees in the City of Zunhua, located northeast of Beijing in Hebei Provice.

   Premier Zhu expressed his appreciation to the representatives' and the UPS employees' for their tangible contribution to the children of Zunhua and was pleased that the group had experienced rural China.

   Premier Zhu stated the importance of the ``one China'' policy and stated that the PRC does not desire to use force against Taiwan to achieve reunification. He cited Hong Kong as a successful example of reunification and said reunification with Taiwan would not require a change in Taiwan's economic system. Representative Turner expressed his support for the ``one China'' policy and indicated that his support for permanent normal trade relations and the PRC's admission to the WTO was based on his belief that the ability of the U.S. and the PRC to build a strong bond of friendship and cooperation is critical to world peace and prosperity over the next 25 years.

   Assistant Foreign minister Zhou

   In a later meeting, Assistant Foreign minister Zhou outlined China's plan to ``intensify'' its economic reform program. ``With 25 million people entering the work force each year, if we are to avoid problems, we need to speed up reform.'' He stated

   Beijing, China (May 29-June 1)

   In the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), the delegation met with President Jiang and senior foreign ministry officials; met officials of the Chinese Peoples Institute of Foreign Affairs; engaged the U.S. Country team in discussions; and visited the National Defense University, where Representative Weldon addressed the student body and delegation members met in breakout sessions with the PLA students attending the University. There was also a side-group meeting by Representatives Turner and Bachus with Premier Ju.

   President Jiang

   In the delegation meeting with President Jiang, Representative Weldon expressed the desire of the majority of the American people for a productive long-term relationship with the PRC.

   President Jiang indicated that China and the U.S. have more interests in common than differences and encouraged mutual respect and moderation. He urged that the U.S. should accept that there are other acceptable models than that of the U.S. for political and economic development. President Jiang stated that the most important and sensitive issue in Sino-American relations is Taiwan. He cited the importance of continuing the ``one China'' policy. ``The Chinese relationship boils down to one question: Taiwan ..... The question is a very simple one ..... We have already agreed (citing normalization, the three joint communiqués, and ``three no's'') ..... we don't understand why the U.S. is sending weapons to Taiwan ..... We place much hope in you as representatives that we can get much done.''

   Representative Weldon indicated he supported the ``one China'' policy. ``Arms sales take place when there is a perception, right or wrong, that a threat exists to the people of Taiwan ..... I am the Chairman responsible for authorizing the procurement of all our military systems. But I am a teacher by profession. I would like to spend money on education, not weapons ..... We do not want conflict with China in any form.''

   Representative Hastings, citing the importance to both China and the U.S. of engaging the DPRK, asked President Jiang if he would consider having his officials contact the DPRK on the delegation's behalf to arrange a visit. He also asked the President what China is doing to ease tensions between India and Pakistan. The President encouraged the delegation visit to the DPRK, but ``whether they allow the visit must be totally up to them ..... We cannot take decisions in their place. North Korea will have to decide. China is China. North Korea is North Korea.'' On India and Pakistan, the President indicated that both countries are ``China's neighbors'' and said he hoped the Kashmir problem can be solved peacefully. ``Although people are of a view that we are closer to Pakistan, we are trying to get each side to work together. Our relationship with India has fluctuated, but more recently we have had a constantly improving relationship with India.'' He also said that because of the U.S. need to fight terrorism, he believed that ``the U.S. attitude toward Pakistan has changed.'' the purpose of their foreign policy is world peace and common development. ``China is not a threat to anyone and should not be perceived as a threat ..... perception is important ..... China is an important force in the region for peace ..... In our relationship, we have accomplished a lot ..... the only problem is Taiwan ..... The issue of Taiwan should be left to the Chinese to work out. The U.S. should not become involved ..... Our policy goal of peaceful reunification remains. If they (Taiwanese) accept one China, we can be very patient. I hope you will not send signals that can be misinterpreted.''

   Representatives Bartlett suggested that Taiwan is a ``tiny island'' with relatively small population and that China and the U.S. should focus on the 90 percent of what we have in common. Representative Horn indicated that ``it would be the biggest mistake ever made for China to invade Taiwan.'' Mr. Horn also expressed his concern over a quote attributed to a Chinese admiral citing ``missiles over LA'' as a Chinese option. Minister Zhou indicated that such a quote was incorrect.

   In response to Representative Brown, Minister Zhou agreed there are both obligations and benefits to entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). ``We will honor our words.'' He indicated there would be challenges for China as a WTO member, but also opportunities. In acknowledging the $100 billion annual trade imbalance between the U.S. and China, Minister Zhou said that ``China wishes to buy more, but that there are too many restrictions.'' Also in response to Representative Brown, he cited the need for the Three Gorges Dam project as primarily for flood control, acknowledged the importance of environmental protection, and said that electricity production is secondary.

   In response to a question from Representative Hastings on India and Pakistan, Minister Zhou indicated that the Foreign Ministers involved had talked and cited the need ``to be cautious and avoid escalation ..... The President of Pakistan said he would not use force. We have encouraged them to talk together.''

   Minister Zhou concluded that ``China will not commit to not use force in the case of Taiwan because we don't want to use force ..... If we make such a commitment (Taiwan) separatists will push for a proclamation of independence, which would be a disaster for everyone.'' Representative Hastings indicated that the issue of Taiwan would likely take care of itself over time because of the large and increasing investment by Taiwan interests in mainland China.

   Chinese Peoples Institute for Foreign Affairs (CPIFA)

   President Mei indicated that the CPIFA had worked for 50 years doing exchanges, sponsoring research on international affairs, and hosting high level delegations to promote mutual understanding and bilateral relationships. He cited the importance of economic development and discussed the wide variance within China of economic well-being, with per capita GDP in cities like Shanghai being $4,000, while in many regions it is $300/person. He stated that last year began a policy of developing China's west (12 provinces, two-thirds of China's land area) and cited the need for a stable international environment for economic development. He also discussed the Taiwan issue, citing all of the same factors mentioned by President Jiang and Assistant Foreign Minister Zhou.

   In response to a question from Representative Horn, President Mei said China had three domestic goals: develop the west economically, achieve sustained growth throughout the country, and advance education in science and technology. ``The quality of human resources is key to China's development.''

   National Defense University

   Representative Weldon addressed the military students at the National Defense University for the Peoples Liberation Army on Sino-American relations; America's policy toward Taiwan; the need for increased dialogue and cooperative programs between the PLA and U.S. military; the common threat to China and the U.S. posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and drug trafficking; and the role the Congress plays in the U.S. system of government. After Representative Weldon's address, Members of

[Page: H3226]

   Seoul, Yongsan U.A. Army Base, and the DMZ, Korea (June 1-3)

   In Korea the delegation met with the foreign minister; the U.S. Ambassador, Thomas C. Hubbard; Members of the National Assembly; senior U.S. and Korean military officials; Korean business leaders; and family members of U.S. military personnel.

   Ambassador Hubbard

   Ambassador Hubbard provided the delegation an overview of the Republic of Korea (ROK) political and economic situation, indicating that the South Korean economy continues its recovery from the 1997 economic crisis, currently growing at five-to-six percent a year, making its growth second only in the region, to China. He also advised the delegation of the significant and prompt support provided by the ROK to the events of 9/11. The ROK ``stepped up quickly to our war against the Taliban and al-Queda in Afghanistan, and provided shipping, aircraft, and a field hospital to support U.S. operations ..... In addition they have provided $40 million in aid to Afghanistan.'' The Ambassador further highlighted the critical importance of local and provincial elections taking place in June and the national election in December 2002. He indicated that the South Koreans continue to make major strides in political and democratic reforms.

   Foreign Minister Choi

   In the delegation meeting with Foreign Minister Choi, Representative Weldon expressed his appreciation for all that the ROK had done and continues to do in support of the international war on terrorism. He also reaffirmed our total commitment to the defense of the ROK. Foreign Minister Choi indicated that his country's prompt support for the U.S. led war on terrorism was an expression of the importance of the effort as well as its appreciation for all the U.S. has done on the Korean Peninsula.

   Foreign Minister Choi highlighted the rather significant contribution to ROK-Japanese relations made by the joint sponsorship of the on-going World Cup. He commented that the opening ceremonies were the first time that the Japanese national anthem had been played at an official event in the ROK. He also noted that at the opening ceremonies, in a spontaneous sign of friendship, the two Presidents stood and raised clasped hands, signaling the friendship between their two countries. Foreign Minister Choi described the event as a ``spectacular moment'' for the two countries--the ``first time this has happened in a thousand years.''

   Representative Weldon also expressed to the Foreign Minister, the delegation's consternation with the North Korean, DPRK, failure to approve the delegation's visit request. The delegation had hoped to visit the DPRK to open a dialogue with the North, to express the interest of the legislative branch of the U.S. Government in addressing food aid, agriculture, health, education and other humanitarian assistance. The delegation had hoped to deliver a ``totally positive'' message to the North--that as a coequal branch of the U.S. government, Congress could work with the DPRK to further peace and stability on the Peninsula and help the people of North Korea.

   Foreign Minister Choi indicated that the ROK continues its efforts to maintain the dialogue with the North, but the pace of discussions is much slower than what had been hoped for. He expressed considerable concern over the state of the DPRK economy and the well-being of its people. ``Our interest is to try and engage, help them improve their situation, to try and increase cooperation.'' The foreign minister indicated the North is in desperate need of food, health care, and electrical power. He also indicated that the next year will be a critical period because of ROK elections, potential instability in the North due to its dysfunctional economic system, the issue of the DPRK nuclear power reactor and related required inspections by the international community.

   National Assembly

   The delegation later met with Members of the ROK National Assembly. Discussions related to trade; the importance to the ROK of U.S. Forces in Korea for deterrence purposes; the war on terrorism; political and military stability on the Korean Peninsula; the strong desire for eventual reunification of the DPRK and ROK; internet voting in the ROK; ``e'' government; and the ``digital divide.''

   United Nations/Combined Forces Command

   The Members of the delegation also met with the senior combatant commander, General Leon LaPorte, and his staff to get a detailed assessment of the military balance, force readiness, personnel morale, and classified issues.

   American Chamber of Commerce

   Regarding the difficulty and frustration the Delegation experienced in attempting to arrange a visit with DPRK leadership, American Chamber of Commerce officials the delegation met with indicated a similar frustration with the ``on again, off again'' nature of visits they had attempted to arrange.

   Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)

   Delegation Members were provided the opportunity to visit the DMZ. Representative Chabot was able to engage military officials on behalf of the relatives of Corporal Edward Gibson, who has been missing in action since November 26, 1950. Representative Chabot acquired an American flag which had been flown at the DMZ in honor of Corporal Gibson and will present the flag to the Gibson family. During the course of the CODEL, Representative Chabot also stressed to Foreign Minister Choi, Ambassador Hubbard, and other U.S. Embassy personnel the importance of making every effort to recover the remains of Corporal Gibson and other U.S. servicemen missing in action.

--

   U.S.-Russia Partnership--A New Time, A New Beginning

   SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

   Agricultural development

   Assist in agricultural production.

   Expand private-sector investment.

   Enhance capacity to purchase essential agricultural inputs, commodities and equipment.

   Cultural/educational development

   Expand cultural ties outside the major cities.

   Assist regional museums in generating tourism.

   Provide for more Russian language and cultural studies in U.S. schools.

   Defense and security

   Initiate new bilateral talks similar to the Ross-Mamedov talks on a Global Protection System.

   Move forward with joint talks on a new nonproliferation regime.

   Encourage progress on the RAMOS program and restructure the Nuclear Cities Initiative.

   Economic development

   Help facilitate Russia's accession to the WTO and its acceptance of all WTO agreements.

   Increase funding for OPIC and EX-IM Bank projects in Russia.

   Work with Russia to improve intellectual property rights.

   Energy/natural resources

   Foster cooperative pilot projects, starting with oil and gas exploration in Timan Pechora.

   Convene bilateral task force to discuss the energy ramifications of the war on terrorism.

   Eliminate bureaucratic obstacles to joint cooperation on energy.

   Environmental cooperation

   Develop a revolving fund to assure development of promising Russian technologies.

   Expand debt for nature swaps.

   Dramatically expand cooperation on marine science research.

   Health care

   Increase emphasis on chronic diseases like cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

   Develop more extensive physician exchange programs.

   Augment existing cooperation between NIH and appropriate Russian research institutes.

   Judicial/legal systems

   Support expansion of jury trials into all Russian regions.

   Expand Environmental Public Advocacy Centers into Russia.

   Encourage a doubling of the number of legal clinics.

   Local governments

   Propose ways to expand the tax base available to local governments.

   Encourage political participation by increasing local partisan affiliations.

   Encourage the gradual devolution of services to the local level.

   Science and technology

   Increase cooperation in the area of nuclear fuel cycles.

   Expand cooperative fusion research on nonpolluting energy solutions.

   Involve Russian industry in embryonic U.S. nanotechnology efforts.

   Space and aeronautics

   Utilize commercial joint ventures to enable Russia to meet its Space Station obligations.

   Increase joint projects on space solar power, propulsion technology, and weather satellites.

   Cooperate on mutually-beneficial planetary defense tracking technologies.

--

   Delegation

   MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

   Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Rep. Jim Turner (D-TX), Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), Rep. Steve Horn (R-CA), Delegate Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa), Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL), Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Rep. Carrie Meek (D-FL), Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), and Rep. Brian Kerns (R-IN).

   COMMITTEE STAFF

   Mr. Pete Steffes, Mr. Carl Commenator, Mr. Ryan Vaart, and Mr. Doug Roach.

   DEPARTMENT OF STATE

   Mr. John Merrill and Mr. Mark Cameron.

   DREXEL UNIVERSITY

   Dr. Roy Kim.

   MEDICAL STAFF

   Dr. Michael Keith.

   U.S. AIR FORCE ESCORTS

   Colonel Pete Bunce, Lt. Colonel Laura Shoaf, Senior Master Sergeant JJ Cook, and Staff Sergeant Dave Scieszka.

   Key Contacts

   MOSCOW, RUSSIA

   Victor Chernomerdrin, Former Prime Minister.

   Andrey Kokoshin, Member, Chairman of the Committee on Industry, Construction Industries, and High Tecnologies, State Duma, and former National Security Advisor to President Yeltsin.

   Vladimir Lukhin, Member, State Federation Council.

   Grigory Vavlinsky, Vice Speaker, State Duma.

   Andrey V. Skoch, Member, State Duma, Metallurgy and Mining Caucus.

   Valdimir Rushkov, State Duma.

   Svetlana Gvozdeva, Member, State Duma.

   Boris Nadezhdin, Member, State Duma, Union of Right Forces.

   Alexander Burataeva, Member, State Duma.

   Evgheny Velikhov, President, Kurchatov Institute.

   Nikolai Ponomarev-Stepnoi, Vice President, Kurchatov Institute.

   Ku Song Bok, Commercial Attache, DPRK.

   Seth Grae, Thorium Corporation (USA).

   Dr. Edward Lozansky, President, American University, Moscow.

   Karen Aguilar, U.S. Embassy.

   U.S.-Russia Business Council.

   International Republican Institute.

   National Democracy Institute.

   American Chamber of Commerce.

   Moscow Petroleum Club.

   TASHKENT, UZBEKISTAN

   Islam Karimov, President.

   Abdulaziz Kamilov, Minister of Foreign Affairs.

   John E. Herbst, U.S. Ambassador, Uzbekistan.

   Larry Memmott, Chief Political-Military Section, U.S. Embassy.

   KARSHI-KHANABAD, UZBEKISTAN (``K-2'')

   Colonel Lovelad.

   BEIJING, CHINA

   Jiang Zemin, President, PRC.

   Ju Ryang Zi, Premier, PRC.

   Zhou Wenzhong, Assistant Foreign Minister.

   Mei, Zhaorong, President, Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs.

   Clark T. Randt, U.S. Ambassador, PRC.

   Brigadier General Gratton Sealock, Defense Attache, U.S. Embassy.

   James Wayman, U.S. Embassy.

   National Defense University.

   SEOUL, KOREA

   Sung Hong, Choi, Foreign Minister.

   Jay Kun Yoo, Member of National Assembly, ROK, Chairman of U.S.-Korea Interparliamentary Exchange Council.

   Dai-Chul Chyung, Member of the National Assembly, PhD.

   Unna Huh, Member of National Assembly, ROK, Information Technology Committee.

   Joo Hong Nam, Professor of Unification and National Security, Kyounggi University.

   Un Yong Kim, Executive Board, International Olympic Committee.

   Kyung Soon Chang, Chairman, Senior Council, The Parliamentarians Society.

   Thomas C. Hubbard, U.S. Ambassador, South Korea.

   General Leon LaPorte, Commander In Chief, United National Command (UNC), Combined Forces Command (CFC), and U.S. Forces Command (USFC).

   Lt General Dan Zanini, Chief of Staff, USFC.

   Brigadier General John Defreintas, J-2 (Intelligence), USFC.

   Colonel Bud Redmond, J-5 (Plans), USFC.

   H. Con. Res. 36

   Whereas over one million Americans suffer from juvenile (Type 1) diabetes, a chronic, genetically determined, debilitating disease affecting every organ system;

   Whereas 13,000 children a year 35 each day are diagnosed with juvenile diabetes;

   Whereas 17,000 adults a year 46 each day are diagnosed with juvenile diabetes;

   Whereas juvenile diabetes is one of the most costly chronic diseases of childhood;

   Whereas insulin treats but does not cure this potentially deadly disease and does not prevent the complications of diabetes, which include blindness, heart attack, kidney failure, stroke, nerve damage, and amputations;

   Whereas the Diabetes Research Working Group, a non-partisan advisory board established to advise Congress, has called for an accelerated and expanded diabetes research program at the National Institutes of Health and has recommended a $4.1 billion increase in Federal funding for diabetes research at the National Institutes of Health over the next five years; and

   Whereas a strong public private partnership to fund juvenile diabetes exists between the Federal Government and the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, a foundation which has awarded more than $326 million for diabetes research since 1970 and will give $100 million in fiscal year 2001: Now, therefore, be it

   Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Federal funding for diabetes research should be increased in accordance with the recommendations of the Diabetes Research Working Group so that a cure for juvenile diabetes can be found.

END

2A) Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, under rule IX, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a resolution.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will report the resolution.

   The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

   Whereas the President's constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, and

   Whereas, under the Constitution, treaties have the status of ``supreme law of the land,'' equally with other laws, and

   Whereas, the President does not have the authority to repeal laws, and

   Whereas, the President is not authorized to withdraw unilaterally from treaties in general, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in particular, without the consent of Congress, and

   Whereas, the President unilaterally withdrew the United States of America from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 without seeking or obtaining the consent of either house of Congress; therefore be it

   Resolved, That the President should respect the Constitutional role of Congress and seek the approval of Congress for the withdrawal of the United States of America from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

   POINT OF ORDER

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the resolution does not constitute a question of privilege under rule IX of the rules of the House.

   Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak specifically to the parliamentary issue before the House, whether the resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio constitutes a question of privilege. The starting point for this inquiry is the rules of this institution, and in particular rule IX which governs questions of privilege.

   Rule IX states that in order for a resolution to constitute a question of privilege of the House, it must deal with matters ``affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity and the integrity of its proceedings'' or ``affecting the rights, reputation and conduct of the Members, Delegate or the Resident Commissioner, individually, in their representative capacity only.''

   An important clarification of this rule is set forth in section 702 of the House Rules and Manual. That section states that, under applicable House precedents, ``rule IX is concerned not with the privileges of the Congress, as a legislative branch, but only with the privileges of the House, as a House.''

   Mr. Speaker, in this connection I think it is important to emphasize the gentleman's resolution relates to the termination of a treaty. As we all know, the Constitution gives the House of Representatives no role in the approval of treaties. Under article 2, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, the Senate alone has the prerogative to review treaties and approve their ratification by the President. Until the Senate grants its approval, a treaty may not be ratified and enter into force.

   In the case of the antiballistic missile, or ABM, treaty, which is the subject of this resolution, the Senate approved ratification of the treaty on August 3, 1972, and President Nixon ratified it 2 months later. Once this happened, the ABM treaty became the supreme law of the land pursuant to article 6, clause 2 of the Constitution. All of this happened without any involvement by the House of Representatives, which is as it should be under the Constitution. In addition, the treaty itself under article 15 states that ``each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this treaty.''

   The sponsor of this resolution argues that even though the House of Representatives had no role in bringing the ABM treaty into force, we somehow have an indispensable constitutional role in deciding whether to approve the termination of the treaty. I could understand someone in the Senate making such an argument about the prerogative of the Senate in such matters, but I am mystified how anyone could read such a prerogative into the Constitution for the House of Representatives.

[Page:
H3233]

   More to the point, the Supreme Court has told us that not even the Senate has such a prerogative. In 1979 in the case of Goldwater v. Carter, the Supreme Court rejected a claim by former Senator Goldwater that President Carter had acted unconstitutionally by abrogating our mutual defense pact with Taiwan without first obtaining the Senate's permission to do so. I happen to share some of Senator Goldwater's reservations about President Carter's action with regard to our commitments to Taiwan. But disagreeing with the substance of the action is very different from claiming that the action itself was unconstitutional. That is in effect what the Supreme Court told Senator Goldwater when it threw his case out of court.

   I would urge the sponsor of this resolution to take that lesson to heart. He certainly has the right to disagree with President Bush's decision, and I would welcome a debate on any properly framed legislation he might want to offer addressing that decision, or questions of missile defense more generally. But it ill serves this institution, to say nothing of the Constitution, to accuse the President of violating the Constitution when Supreme Court precedent and 215 years of practice make clear that the President was fully within his rights to act as he did.

   Out of respect for this institution and our Constitution, I would urge the gentleman to withdraw his resolution. Failing that, I would urge the Chair to rule the resolution out of order, and I would urge my colleagues to sustain that ruling if appealed.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard?

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my good friend from Illinois and letting him know that this is not about the ABM treaty. This is really about the role that this institution has in a democracy. Mr. Speaker, almost 226 years ago, the Founders of this great Nation cast off the yoke of imperialism and declared their independence from the tyranny of King George III. Soon after, these United States weaved from the sturdy threads of justice and democracy a Constitution to serve as the ultimate guardian of rule by the people and for the people. Over two centuries later, these documents still comprise the fabric of our Republic.

   Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this fabric is today being steadily frayed by an executive that does not respect the constitutionally protected role of this Congress in the governance of our Nation. The President insists that he has the unilateral authority to terminate treaties; but article 1, section 1 of our Constitution clearly states, quote, ``all legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.''

   The Constitution empowers Congress to establish laws and charges the President with carrying out these laws. Nowhere in this Constitution does it give the President the authority to repeal laws. Only Congress has the authority to undo its legislative work. Yet this is exactly what the President has done, unilaterally repeal a law, the ABM treaty, that was constitutionally enacted by joint action of the legislature and executive, Senate ratification and Presidential signature.

   The Constitution sets up the legislature and the executive as coequal and separate branches of government. Allowing the President to execute only those laws he agrees with obliterates our carefully constructed system of checks and balances. If the President acts both as the maker and the executor of laws, why have a Congress at all? Such action was so offensive to liberty that Thomas Jefferson cited it in the Declaration as a grievance warranting disaffiliation with Britain. Thomas Jefferson chafed at the actions of King George and others, quote, ``suspending our legislatures and declaring themselves vested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.''

   Mr. Speaker, your decision today to grant privilege to this motion should take into consideration the grave challenge to the Constitution the President has made in his unilateral withdrawal from a treaty; but your decision, Mr. Speaker, will and must turn on House precedent. My motion to raise a question as to the privileges of this House under rule IX falls under section 702 of the rule and, Mr. Speaker, section 702 of this rule, which I have highlighted here in green in the Jefferson manual, and I would ask my colleagues to look at this because these are the rules that we play by. Section 702 of this rule states, ``The constitutional prerogatives of the House also include its function with respect to treaties.'' I am going to read that again. The constitutional prerogatives of the House, of the House, also include its function with respect to treaties.

   Hind's notations in this book contains 36 precedents. Thirty-five of them do not have any bearing on this issue today, but one of them does, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that one establishes the precedent for my motion today. I refer specifically to notation 1505. On March 2, 1835, the House agreed to the following resolution which read in part, ``Resolved, that in the opinion of this House, the treaty with France of the 4th of July, 1831, should be maintained.''

   Why did the House pass a resolution stating that a treaty should be maintained? The treaty with France was done to settle claims by the U.S. against France for the confiscation of American vessels and cargo. At the time France confiscated American property, our two countries were hostile towards each other. The treaty of 1831, then, was an act of diplomacy intended to prevent the resumption of hostilities through the diplomatic resolution of claims. President Andrew Jackson was unhappy with French compliance with the treaty, which in his opinion was too slow. President Jackson, according to ``A Diplomatic History of the American People'' by Thomas Bailey, was thoroughly aroused. ``The French,'' he was reported to have shouted, ``won't pay unless they're made to.'' He declared that Congress should authorize the Federal Government to seize French property.

   According to another source, ``A Diplomatic History of the United States'' by Samuel Flagg Bemis, ``Further negotiation,'' Jackson declared, ``was out of the question.'' In other words, Mr. Speaker, President Jackson wanted to withdraw from the treaty with France. The House, wanting to support the President, gave the President the authority to make contingent preparations to meet any emergency growing out of relations with France. But, and this is a critical point, Mr. Speaker, the House did not authorize the President to withdraw from the treaty. Rather, the House asserted the opposite, that the treaty should be maintained. Congress insisted that the President not rule out of question further negotiation with France as his rhetoric and actions suggested he wanted to.

[Time: 10:45]

   Instead, Congress in effect told him he had to continue negotiating with France.

   Now, I ask my colleagues today, who here has the courage, like our vaunted predecessors in this hallowed body, to assert Congressional prerogative? Who here will challenge a power grab by the chief executive?

   The world's geopolitical trash bin is already littered with treaties and agreements unilaterally discarded by the United States under this administration. Congressional requests for testimony and information are routinely ignored. Our insistence on our oversight role is scoffed at. We must assert our role in this treaty withdrawal in order to prevent further erosion of constitutional authority.

   Mr. Speaker, in 1835 the House of Representatives asserted its prerogative with respect to treaties, and that law is why this reference is in this manual. It did not permit the President to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty with France as he clearly intended to do and as he stated his intention to do so. Instead, through action in this House, Congress affirmed that the treaty with France be maintained. This episode, Mr. Speaker, set a precedent for this House that bears directly on this resolution today.

   My resolution states, ``Resolved, that the President should respect the constitutional role of Congress and seek the approval of Congress for the withdrawal of the United States of America from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty.'' In other words, before the President

[Page: H3234]

   Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that the privileges of this House as set forth by a precedent in 1835 have been violated by the President. My motion claims that a privilege of this House has been violated, and it is a privilege that sits on 167 years of precedent.

   Mr. Speaker, indeed, in more than two centuries, only a handful of treaties have been unilaterally terminated by the President. In the vast majority of those cases, one or both of the Houses of Congress consented.

   My motion, Mr. Speaker, deserves to be heard today. Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter ruled 50 years ago, ``The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority.''

   Mr. Speaker, at issue today are not the specifics of the ABM treaty, the merits of missile defense or any other policy considerations. At issue is whether this House of Representatives, this Congress, will stand up to an imperial President.

   ``The history of the present king of Great Britain,'' wrote Thomas Jefferson in this declaration, ``is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations.''

   How many injuries and usurpations must this Congress endure before it fights back? How much longer will we allow this executive to trample on our Constitution? I urge the Speaker to allow this motion to be heard, and I urge my colleagues to defend this document, our Constitution of the United States, which establishes the centrality of the role of this Congress.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) wish to be heard further on the point of order?

   Mr. HYDE. I would like to be heard further on my point of order.

   Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Ohio, who is my good friend and someone for whom I have the utmost respect, but if his theory has any substance, then the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan which President Carter abrogated unilaterally must have undergone resurrection. It was improperly terminated then, and how many treaties over the years have been terminated without the involvement of the House that have now experienced Easter?

   Now, it is a matter of fact that the treaty itself provided a means for revocation and the Senate ratified the treaty in all of its verbiage in all the four corners of the document, and article 15, section 2, as ratified by the United States Senate pursuant to the Constitution, says, ``Each party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from this treaty,'' et cetera, et cetera.

   The President was required to give 6 months notice, he did give 6 months notice, and June 13 of this year equals the 6-month period where the revocation becomes final.

   So the Congress was involved in the treaty ratification pursuant to the Constitution, which gives the House no role in ratifying treaties. The rule the gentleman referred to talks about the House's role in implementing treaties through legislation. Yes, we have that role, we always have. But that is a far cry from

   saying we must approve a termination of a treaty which, by its terms, provided a process for revocation by the President.

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, may I respond.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Illinois would be interested to hear the words of a constitutional law scholar who wrote in the New York Times on August 29, 2001, and this is from Professor Bruce Ackerman, he said, ``Presidents can't terminate statutes they don't like. They must persuade both houses of Congress to join in a repeal. Should the termination of treaties operate any differently? The question first came up in 1798. As war intensified in Europe, America found itself in an entangling alliance with the French under treaties made during our own revolution. But President John Adams did not terminate these treaties unilaterally. He signed an act of Congress to declare the treaties heretofore concluded with France no longer obligatory on the United States. The next case was in 1846. As the country struggled to define its northern boundary with Canada, President James Polk specifically asked Congress for authority to withdraw from the Oregon Territory Treaty with Great Britain and Congress obliged with a joint resolution. Cooperation of the legislative and executive branches remained the norm, despite some exceptions, during the next 125 years.''

   That is from constitutional scholar Bruce Ackerman.

   Furthermore, citing my good friend from Illinois who spoke of Goldwater versus Carter, another constitutional scholar, Peter Weiss, said in a work called The President, the Constitution and the ABM Treaty, ``It is generally believed that Congress lost this case, Goldwater versus Carter, precluding further challenges to unilateral presidential termination. But as a vast number of commentators have pointed out and as the following analysis will show, this is a vast oversimplification of the extraordinary complex set of judicial rulings. In fact, Congress' role in treaty termination is very much alive. As Chief Judge Wright of the D.C. Circuit, quoted with approval by Justice Rehnquist of the Supreme Court, said in the Goldwater case, Congress has a variety of powerful tools for influencing foreign policy decisions that bear on treaty matters. In the first stage of the constitutional debate between 24 members of Congress and President Carter, Judge Oliver Gasch of the District Court of the District of Columbia District found that the plaintiffs had standing to invoke the aid of his court and their suit was not barred by the political question doctrine. In approaching the substantive question of treaty termination authority, on which the Constitution is silent, Judge Gasch first reviewed the history of two centuries of treaty termination. He found that, while there have been some apparently unchallenged instances of unilateral termination by the President, most of these involved `commercial situations where the need for the treaty or the efficacy of it was no longer apparent.' ''

   More significantly, Mr. Speaker, he found out that ``The great majority of the historical precedents involved some form of mutual action whereby the President's notice of termination received the affirmative approval of the Senate or of the entire Congress.''

   I want to conclude by stating this. He says, ``The President invoked his foreign affairs power in support of his position,'' citing the famous, or infamous, depending on one's views, dictum in Curtiss-Wright, that he is ``the sole organ of the Federal Government in the field of international relations.''

   But that case involved an executive agreement, not a treaty, and Judge Gasch dismissed the argument in the following terms: ``While the President may be the sole organ of communication with foreign government, he is clearly not the sole maker of foreign policy. In short, the conduct of foreign relations is not a plenary executive power.''

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution, section 2, says he shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.

   I have looked through this document. It does not say a single blessed thing about revocation or termination of treaties. It talks about the making of them, and it is the Senate who advises and consents, with two-thirds in support.

   Now, I would like to ask my dear friend if there is any merit or substance to his position, how many votes of the House will it take to ratify a termination and where do you find that?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will hear the gentleman from Illinois, but Members should not be yielding back and forth.

   Do any other Members wish to be heard?

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the gentleman from Illinois.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois speaks to the Senate's ability to make treaties.

[Page: H3235]

   Mr. HYDE. Ratify.

   Mr. KUCINICH. Ratify treaties. But it does not speak to the President's authority to break treaties which he has no authority to do, as the treaty is a law.

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, if I may be heard further, but the treaty itself, Mr. Speaker, provides a mechanism for terminating the treaty, and that treaty was ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, which involved the House constitutionally. So, I just do not see what the gentleman's complaint is.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that they are to make their points to the Chair.

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), points out that in article VI it says, ``This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made,'' and all treaties made, ``or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.''

   It is a law and the President cannot unilaterally break a law. It is not his right under the Constitution.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois wish to be recognized?

   Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I seek to be recognized on the point of order.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.

   Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) in his objection on this motion.

   The gentleman from Ohio refers to House rule 9 preserving the integrity of the House, but he does not refer to article II of the Constitution, which clearly places the power to ratify treaties not in this body, but in the Senate.

[Time: 11:00]

   He does not refer to the text of the ABM treaty, which reads as follows, in article 15, part 1: ``Each party shall, exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of the treaty have jeopardized its supreme interest. It shall give notice of its decision to the other party 6 months prior to the withdrawal from the treaty,'' which the President has done.

   This power is given directly to the President to respond to increased threats from missiles by withdrawing from the outdated 1970s document.

   This motion by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) ignores settled Supreme Court decisions regarding the abrogation of the treaty with Taiwan. This motion does not refer to the SHAHAB III Iranian missile program, the Iraqi Scud program, the North Korea No Dong missile program, all pointed at the U.S. Armed Forces. It makes no reference to the 39 Scud missiles that fell on Israel and the growing missile threat to our Israeli allies.

   Under the terms of the Constitution, giving this power to the Senate, not to the House, in a treaty which specifically allows the President to withdraw from it, and relevant Supreme Court decisions regarding the abrogation of the treaty, and in light of the growing missile threat from rogue nations to the United States and our allies, the President has duly executed this authority and the House has no role.

   In sum, Mr. Speaker, this is a treaty, not a law. A treaty should be regarded as a statute, especially with regard to implementing legislation requiring House action. That is not present here, and the motion should be ruled out of order.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Does any other Member wish to be heard?

   Mr. NADLER. I do, Mr. Speaker.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

   Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very important debate. I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for bringing this resolution before the House.

   I would direct my remarks particularly to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations.

   There are two texts that are key here. One is the provision in article 6 of the Constitution that the gentleman from Ohio read a few minutes ago: ``The Constitution and the laws of the United States, which should be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.''

   A treaty is a law, in exactly the same sense as any other law made pursuant to the Constitution of the United States. It is treated exactly the same. That is the first point.

   The gentleman from Illinois read from the ABM treaty, and he read a sentence that says, and I do not have the exact words, and the gentleman from Illinois may wish to give me the exact words, but the parties shall have the authority to withdraw from the treaty. I think that is what the gentleman read, that the ``parties'' shall have the authority to withdraw from the treaty.

   But who are the parties? The party is the United States, not the President. Indeed, the President, who signed it, Richard Nixon, I think, would we say that only Richard Nixon has the authority to withdraw from the treaty, or Richard Nixon's successors? No, the parties to the treaty are a country. The United States signs the treaty. Someone may sign on behalf of the United States, but the United States is the party to a treaty; so the United States may, according to its constitutional processes, whatever they may be, and that is what we are discussing here, withdraw from a treaty.

   So that language in the treaty is not particularized to the President. The question is: How does the United States withdraw from a treaty? I submit this is a very important debate and should not be ruled out of order. It may be the resolution, it may be that we need further study of this.

   Maybe one could make a case, I do not think so, but maybe one could make a case that rather than a vote of both Houses to withdraw from the treaty, we should need a two-thirds vote of the Senate, because that is how we got into it. I would not think so, but it may be.

   But the fact is, it is the law. The Constitution in article 6 says that the treaty which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. We cannot permit, in a democratic society, the President by himself or any other person by himself to repeal a law. That is not our system.

   It is, frankly, puzzling to me, it has been puzzling for a long time, and I think this opens a number of questions, that we have various trade treaties which do not get two-thirds votes in the Senate and require votes in the House and Senate. I do not understand why they are not treaties. There are provisions in the Constitution that we seem to have conveniently forgotten about.

   I think that this provision is very clear: a treaty is a law, exactly the same as any other law. It can be repealed in the same way, and the language of the gentleman from Illinois, that the distinguished chairman cited in the treaty itself, simply says the parties may withdraw from the treaty; but the party in this case is the United States.

   The parties it refers to are the United States and Russia and China; China did not sign it, but France, and whoever else signed the treaty. A party to a treaty has always been held in law to be the country, not the individual who signed on behalf of the country.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman reminds us that a treaty is the supreme law of the land, and then says that the President cannot abrogate the law unilaterally without some legislative action.

   I suggest that the President has followed the law to the letter. The law is in the treaty. The treaty itself provides a mechanism for withdrawing from the treaty: ``Each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty. ..... '' How do we exercise our national sovereignty? The gentleman would suggest a plebiscite throughout the country.

   The very words of the treaty, which are the supreme law of the land, have been observed by the President. So that argument is a nullity.

   Secondly, do all Members, and I am asking this rhetorically, do all Members concede the Taiwan defense treaty as still valid and that President Carter's termination of it was illegal, and of no force and effect? They have

[Page: H3236]

   I submit this is not a privilege of the House.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his recounting of the past history with the Taiwan agreement. I might not be quoting specifically from the Constitution, but past errors do not suffice for allowing us to continue in that path.

   What we have not done, Mr. Speaker, is to focus on the language that the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has offered. The language specifically said: ``Resolved, that the President should respect the constitutional role of Congress and seek the approval of Congress for the withdrawal of the United States of America from the antiballistic missile treaty.'' Nowhere does it distinguish between House and Senate. The gentleman is only asking that the President not unilaterally withdraw from the ABM treaty.

   If we look to the Constitution, we will find that there are three articles that begin our Constitution: article I, the legislative branch; article II, the executive branch; and article 3, the judicial branch. None of those branches are elevated higher than the next branch. These are three equal branches of government.

   What we argue today is section 9 does allow a privileged resolution, if I might use the quote from rule IX of the privileged motion, ``..... must deal with the rights of the House and the dignity of the House.''

   The House is a reflection of the American people. The right of the House is to be part of a Congress that, in joint collaboration with the executive, then makes a determination as to whether the people of the United States withdraw from the ABM treaty.

   The resolution does not ask for the House to act. It simply says it seeks the approval of Congress. We are asking that the President seek the approval of Congress; that before he moves forward with the final decision on the ABM treaty, he does not make a unilateral decision.

   I believe, Mr. Speaker, this comes within the privileged motion. It comes within the rights of the House, the House being a reflection of the American people. I believe that it is clear that between the three branches of government, there is no superior branch.

   As we know, those who escaped persecution and came to found the 13 Colonies in the United States of America decided to try to escape despotism and the oppression of a single ruler. Specifically, the Founding Fathers established three equal branches of government.

   I believe we are abdicating our responsibilities as a House of Representatives, and therefore, the Congress of the United States, by suggesting that a President can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty as important as the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty.

   I would argue that rule IX does stand and does comply, or at least the motion of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) does comply with rule IX. It is a privileged motion. It protects the rights of the House. It should be adhered to, and we should be allowed to debate this very important statement and resolution on behalf of the dignity of the House, on behalf of the rights of the House, on behalf of the rights of the people of the United States of America and in reflection of the Constitution of the United States that indicates article 1, 2, and 3 are equal; and that, if by some error, we allow an erroneous action to take place under President Carter, that we should not continue such and we should begin to turn the tide by suggesting that the Congress has a viable role in ensuring that a unilateral decision as important as the ABM treaty should not be made by a single branch of the government, and that is the executive.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Are there other Members who wish to be heard?

   The Chair intends to recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). That should conclude debate on the point of order and the Chair will be prepared to rule.

   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).

   Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I support the position of the distinguished chairman. He is absolutely correct.

   I would be happy to debate the merits of the President's decision in this body any day under an open process. But the gentlewoman from Texas just said that this House has the prerogative and that no one of our three branches is, in fact, greater than the other. I agree with her.

   In fact, let us look at our constitutional history. When a Senator, a Member of the other body, challenged the actions of President Carter in his abrogation of the treaty with Taiwan, a Senator, who was part of the ratification of that treaty, went to the Supreme Court.

   Now, the Supreme Court is the third branch of our government. As the gentlewoman said, none of the three branches are above the other. The Supreme Court would not even hear the case. The Supreme Court said that there is no standing of the Senator.

   The Supreme Court is that third branch of our government that interprets the Constitution, not some scholar from Harvard, not some independence analyst. The Supreme Court issued an order saying to a Member of the other body: You have no standing. You have no standing to bring an action against the President, even though he in fact abrogated a treaty, which was allowed within the terms of the treaty.

   So this debate has no basis. It has no substance. In fact, my colleagues on the other side have not even answered the question if they would in fact agree with what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) said, that, therefore, the treaty of Taiwan is still in place, because this issue is about the substance of the ABM treaty.

   Let us have that debate. The gentleman can offer a bill, and we will debate it on the floor of the House as a sense of the Congress. But there is no standing, as determined by the Supreme Court.

   Mr. Speaker, I include for the RECORD this brief one-paragraph statement by the Supreme Court in their opinion that the Senator had no standing in objecting to what President Carter did.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members may insert materials in the RECORD following disposition of the point of order.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) is recognized briefly.

   Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio for this very important debate with regard to our constitutional duties and our responsibilities.

   Of course, I rise in support of the question of the privileged resolution, for this resolution. The rules actually state that a motion may be considered as a privilege when the integrity of the House is in question, so this integrity, I believe, is at stake when the President seeks to unilaterally revoke the laws of this Nation by single-handedly withdrawing from the ABM treaty.

   The Constitution, and we have heard the debate this morning, it does not give the President the authority to repeal laws. That is a congressional function.

   Article 1, section 1 of the Constitution says: ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.'' Foreign policy is not the exclusive domain of the executive. Congress has the right and the duty to fulfill its share of the balance of powers. That is what this is about.

   I strongly support this privileged resolution to uphold the ABM treaty to protect American citizens and to uphold congressional authority. This is central to our democracy. The privileges of the House also reinforce these principles. Rule IX states that the constitutional prerogatives of the House also include its function with respect to treaties.

   The treaty with France of July 4, 1835, and the House resolution stating that the treaty should be maintained is also precedent for today's motion. So we must stand up for these rights and

[Page: H3237]

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is recognized briefly.

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Speaker for his indulgence in this extremely important debate.

   If my colleagues' arguments are correct, then the House of Representatives in 1835 acted unconstitutionally when it passed the resolution stating that the Treaty of France ``should be maintained.'' But, Mr. Speaker, in fact, no court has ever found that, in 167 years, that the House acted unconstitutionally in 1835. It is, therefore, not for opponents to say that the House has no role in treaty termination today.

   My motion is therefore both constitutional, Mr. Speaker, and within the rules of the House. A party to a treaty is the country, not a specific President. In a democracy, a President is not sovereign. In America, the people are sovereign.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on whether the resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) presents a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.

   The resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio asserts a congressional prerogative over withdrawal from treaties by the United States and resolves that the President should not withdraw from a certain treaty absent the approval of the Congress.

   The gentleman from Ohio argues that the Constitution has delegated to the Congress specific responsibility with regard to treaties. As argued by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and as stated in section 702 of the House Rules and Manual, however, rule IX does not support a resolution as a question of privilege when the constitutional prerogatives of the Congress, as a legislative branch, are involved. Rather, it is properly involved only with regard to the privileges of the House, as a House.

[Time: 11:15]

   The Chair was presented with an analogous situation on May 6, 1921. On that occasion, Speaker Gillett held that a resolution presenting a legislative proposition as a question of constitutional privilege under the 14th Amendment did not qualify as a question of the privileges of the House.

   Speaker Gillett's rationale bears repeating: ``The whole question of a constitutional privilege being superior to the rules of the House is a subject which the Chair has for many years considered and thought unreasonable. It seems to the Chair that where the Constitution orders the House to do a thing, the Constitution still gives the House the right to make its own rules and do it at such time and in such manner as it may choose. And it is a strained construction, it seems to the Chair, to say that because the Constitution gives a mandate that a thing shall be done, it therefore follows that any Member can insist that it shall be brought up at some particular time and in the particular way which he chooses.''

   Before Speaker Gillett's ruling in 1921, Speaker Reed in 1898 had also ruled that the ordinary rights and functions of the House under the Constitution are exercised in accordance with the rules, without precedence as matters of privilege.

   The Chair has evaluated similar resolutions in more recent years and determined in each case that a question of privilege was not presented. On February 7, 1995, a resolution invoking several Constitutionally-derived Congressional powers and prerogatives and resolving that an investigation be undertaken into Presidential actions allegedly infringing on such powers was offered as a question of privilege. In ruling that the resolution did not present a question of privilege, Speaker Gingrich stated: ``Although the resolution may address the aspect of the legislative power under the Constitution, it does not involve a constitutional privilege of the House. Were the Chair to rule otherwise, then any alleged infringement by the executive branch, even, for example, through the regulatory process, on a legislative power conferred on Congress by the Constitution would give rise to a question of the privileges of the House.''

   On November 4, 1999, the Chair again ruled that a resolution alleging a certain imbalance in trade, invoking the Constitutionally-derived Congressional power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, and resolving that the President act to alleviate the imbalance did not present a question of the privileges of the House.

   Thus the Chair will continue today to adhere to the same principles enunciated by Speaker Gillett. The Chair holds that an assertion that the Constitution has reserved for Congress certain power with respect to treaties does not render a measure purporting to address the executive branch's exercise of such power a question of the privileges of the House.

   The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has cited page 400 of the House Rules and Manual in support of his argument that resolutions invoking constitutional prerogatives with respect to treaties involve questions of the privileges of the House. The citations listed on page 400 of the Manual are from the second volume of Hind's Precedents at sections 1502 through 1537. The Chair would note that these examples, including section 1505, are merely instances where the House voted on or debated its proper or desired role in certain matters arising under the Constitution with respect to treaties. They are not occasions where resolutions on such topics were presented as questions of privilege. In particular, the example recorded in section 1505 involved a joint resolution reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs and not considered as privileged on the floor.

   The Chair would also note that the relief sought in the resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is in the nature of a desired policy objective. It does not seek to vindicate ``the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, or the integrity of the proceedings.''

   Accordingly, the Chair rules that the resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) does not constitute a question of privileges of the House under rule IX, and may not be considered at this time.

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully appeal the ruling of the Chair.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is: Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

   MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. HYDE

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

   The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

   RECORDED VOTE

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

   A recorded vote was ordered.

   The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 254, noes 169, not voting 11, as follows:

   Aderholt

   Akin

   Armey

   Bachus

   Baird

   Baker

   Ballenger

   Barr

   Bartlett

   Barton

   Bass

   Bereuter

   Berman

   Biggert

   Bilirakis

   Bishop

   Blumenauer

   Blunt

   Boehlert

   Boehner

   Bonilla

   Bono

   Boozman

   Brady (TX)

   Brown (SC)

   Bryant

   Burr

   Burton

   Buyer

   Callahan

   Calvert

   Camp

   Cannon

   Cantor

   Capito

   Capuano

   Carson (OK)

   Castle

   Chabot

   Chambliss

   Coble

   Collins

   Cooksey

   Costello

   Cox

   Cramer

   Crane

   Crenshaw

   Cubin

   Culberson

   Cunningham

   Davis (FL)

   Davis, Jo Ann

   Davis, Tom

   Deal

   DeLay

   DeMint

   Diaz-Balart

   Doolittle

   Dreier

   Duncan

   Dunn

   Edwards

   Ehlers

   Ehrlich

   Emerson

   English

   Everett

   Ferguson

   Flake

   Fletcher

   Foley

   Forbes

   Fossella

   Frank

   Frelinghuysen

   Gallegly

   Ganske

   Gekas

   Gibbons

   Gillmor

   Gilman

   Goode

   Goodlatte

   Goss

   Graham

   Granger

   Graves

   Green (WI)

   Grucci

   Gutknecht

   Hall (TX)

   Hansen

   Hart

   Hastings (WA)

   Hayes

   Hayworth

   Hefley

   Herger

   Hilleary

   Hobson

   Hoekstra

   Holden

   Horn

   Hostettler

   Hulshof

   Hunter

   Hyde

   Isakson

   Issa

   Istook

   Jenkins

   John

   Johnson (CT)

   Johnson (IL)

   Johnson, Sam

   Jones (NC)

   Kanjorski

   Keller

   Kelly

   Kennedy (MN)

   Kerns

   King (NY)

   Kirk

   Knollenberg

   Kolbe

   LaHood

   Latham

   LaTourette

[Page: H3238]

   Leach

   Lewis (CA)

   Lewis (KY)

   Linder

   LoBiondo

   Lucas (KY)

   Lucas (OK)

   Manzullo

   Matheson

   McCarthy (NY)

   McCrery

   McHugh

   McInnis

   McIntyre

   McKeon

   Meehan

   Menendez

   Mica

   Miller, Dan

   Miller, Gary

   Miller, Jeff

   Mollohan

   Moore

   Moran (KS)

   Moran (VA)

   Morella

   Murtha

   Myrick

   Nethercutt

   Ney

   Northup

   Norwood

   Nussle

   Obey

   Ortiz

   Osborne

   Ose

   Otter

   Oxley

   Paul

   Pence

   Peterson (PA)

   Petri

   Pickering

   Pitts

   Platts

   Pombo

   Portman

   Pryce (OH)

   Putnam

   Quinn

   Radanovich

   Rahall

   Ramstad

   Regula

   Rehberg

   Reyes

   Reynolds

   Roemer

   Rogers (KY)

   Rogers (MI)

   Rohrabacher

   Ros-Lehtinen

   Roukema

   Royce

   Ryan (WI)

   Ryun (KS)

   Sandlin

   Saxton

   Schaffer

   Schiff

   Schrock

   Sensenbrenner

   Sessions

   Shadegg

   Shaw

   Shays

   Sherwood

   Shimkus

   Shuster

   Simmons

   Simpson

   Skeen

   Smith (MI)

   Smith (NJ)

   Smith (TX)

   Snyder

   Souder

   Spratt

   Stearns

   Stenholm

   Stump

   Sullivan

   Sununu

   Sweeney

   Tancredo

   Tauzin

   Taylor (NC)

   Terry

   Thomas

   Thornberry

   Thune

   Tiahrt

   Tiberi

   Toomey

   Turner

   Upton

   Vitter

   Walden

   Walsh

   Wamp

   Watkins (OK)

   Watt (NC)

   Watts (OK)

   Weiner

   Weldon (FL)

   Weldon (PA)

   Weller

   Whitfield

   Wicker

   Wilson (NM)

   Wilson (SC)

   Wolf

   Young (AK)

   Young (FL)

   Abercrombie

   Ackerman

   Allen

   Andrews

   Baca

   Baldacci

   Baldwin

   Barcia

   Barrett

   Becerra

   Bentsen

   Berkley

   Berry

   Blagojevich

   Bonior

   Borski

   Boswell

   Boyd

   Brady (PA)

   Brown (FL)

   Brown (OH)

   Capps

   Cardin

   Carson (IN)

   Clay

   Clayton

   Clement

   Clyburn

   Condit

   Conyers

   Coyne

   Crowley

   Cummings

   Davis (CA)

   Davis (IL)

   DeFazio

   DeGette

   Delahunt

   DeLauro

   Deutsch

   Dicks

   Dingell

   Doggett

   Dooley

   Doyle

   Engel

   Eshoo

   Etheridge

   Evans

   Farr

   Fattah

   Filner

   Ford

   Frost

   Gephardt

   Gonzalez

   Gordon

   Green (TX)

   Gutierrez

   Hall (OH)

   Harman

   Hastings (FL)

   Hill

   Hilliard

   Hinchey

   Hinojosa

   Hoeffel

   Holt

   Honda

   Hooley

   Hoyer

   Inslee

   Israel

   Jackson (IL)

   Jackson-Lee (TX)

   Jefferson

   Johnson, E. B.

   Jones (OH)

   Kaptur

   Kennedy (RI)

   Kildee

   Kilpatrick

   Kind (WI)

   Kleczka

   Kucinich

   LaFalce

   Lampson

   Langevin

   Lantos

   Larsen (WA)

   Larson (CT)

   Lee

   Levin

   Lipinski

   Lofgren

   Lowey

   Luther

   Lynch

   Maloney (CT)

   Maloney (NY)

   Markey

   Mascara

   Matsui

   McCarthy (MO)

   McCollum

   McDermott

   McGovern

   McKinney

   McNulty

   Meek (FL)

   Meeks (NY)

   Millender-McDonald

   Miller, George

   Mink

   Nadler

   Napolitano

   Neal

   Oberstar

   Olver

   Owens

   Pallone

   Pascrell

   Pastor

   Payne

   Pelosi

   Peterson (MN)

   Phelps

   Pomeroy

   Price (NC)

   Rangel

   Rivers

   Rodriguez

   Ross

   Rothman

   Roybal-Allard

   Rush

   Sabo

   Sanchez

   Sanders

   Sawyer

   Schakowsky

   Scott

   Sherman

   Shows

   Skelton

   Slaughter

   Solis

   Stark

   Strickland

   Stupak

   Tanner

   Tauscher

   Taylor (MS)

   Thompson (CA)

   Thompson (MS)

   Thurman

   Tierney

   Towns

   Udall (CO)

   Udall (NM)

   Velazquez

   Visclosky

   Waters

   Watson (CA)

   Waxman

   Wexler

   Woolsey

   Wu

   Wynn

   Boucher

   Combest

   Gilchrest

   Greenwood

   Houghton

   Kingston

   Lewis (GA)

   Riley

   Serrano

   Smith (WA)

   Traficant

[Time: 11:43]

   Mr. WYNN and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

   Messrs. SANDLIN, COSTELLO, OTTER, BLUMENAUER, BAIRD and MOORE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

   So the motion to table was agreed to.

   The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

   A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

   Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I include for the RECORD this brief one-paragraph statement by the Supreme Court in their opinion that the Senator had no standing in objecting to what President Carter did.

   [Goldwater et al. v. CARTER, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.]

   [444 U.S. 996; 100 S. Ct. 533; 62 L. Ed. 2d 428; 1979 U.S. Lexis 4144]

   [**533] Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint. Mr. Justice Marshall concurs in the result. Mr. Justice Powell concurs in the judgment [*997] and filed a statement. Mr. Justice Rehnquist concurs in the judgment and filed a statement in which The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Stevens join. Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Blackmun join in the grant of the petition for writ of certiorari but would set the case for argument and give it plenary consideration. Mr. Justice Blackmun filed a statement in which Mr. Justice White joins. Mr. Justice Brennan would grant the petition for writ of certiorari and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and filed a statement. Reported below.--U.S. App. D.C. , F.2d .

END

3A) Syria Accountability Act
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this act recognizes the role that Syria continues to play in promoting instability and terrorism in the Middle East. Syria's support for terrorism , its occupation of Lebanon and efforts toward the development of weapons of mass destruction threaten to hinder efforts to encourage democracy, the rule of law and a lasting peace in the region. As such, this bill represents an effort by Congress to express its outrage with these actions and urge President Bush to take the needed steps that will prod Syria to halt these actions.

Syria has long been on the State Department's list of terrorist nations, and is known to support numerous terrorist organizations including Hizballah, Hamas and the General Command of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Just as importantly, the presence of Syrian troops thwarts the democratic aspirations of the Lebanese people. The Taif accords which mapped out a security program for Lebanon included Syria's commitment to the ``security independence and unity of Lebanon'' and its opposition to any action that ``threatens security independence or [the] sovereignty'' of Lebanon. The current Syrian military presence in Lebanon and its influence in domestic Lebanese politics runs counter to these commitments.

This legislation seeks to address the more pernicious elements of Syria's foreign policy, and I support that goal. That being said, this legislation is not perfect. I am concerned that this legislation does not grant the President a waiver that he might need ``in the interest of national security.'' In addition, some of the certification requirements contained in the bill may need to be revised. When this legislation comes to the floor, I will offer an amendment that addresses these concerns.

While Syria is a nation whose actions are of grave concern to me, Syria supported the Saudi Peace Initiative which recognized the right of the State of Israel to exist, and recently Syria's representative to the United Nation's Security Council voted in favor of smart sanctions which will alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people while hindering Saddam Hussein's ability to obtain the materiel needed to support this efforts to obtain, develop and use weapons of mass destruction.

These are useful steps but pale in significance to the negative actions of Syria that have earned it the dubious distinction of being one of the world's rogue states.

3B) Supplemental Appropriations for Fighting WMD Terrorism
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to express my gratitude to the two leaders for the order that has been entered with respect to the supplemental appropriations bill. That bill is a good bill. It was reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee on yesterday by a vote of 29 to 0. It had unanimous support in the reporting of it on yesterday. That unanimous vote could not have been possible without the cooperation and support and leadership of the distinguished Senator from Alaska and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. TED STEVENS.

   The committee held extensive hearings, and the Senator from Alaska and I joined in issuing the request for witnesses. Every witness that came before the committee had been agreed upon jointly by the Senator from Alaska and myself. Those hearings were important, they were productive, and they brought forth exceedingly valuable information to the members of the committee. And that information is reflected in the makeup of the appropriations bill.

   We had the local responders, the firemen, the police, the emergency health employees. We had seven Cabinet officers from the administration, and we also had the Director of FEMA. We had mayors. We had Governors. I was pleased with the hearings. I am very grateful and appreciative of the efforts that were made by Senator Stevens and the Members on both sides of the aisle. The hearings were very well attended. So it is a good bill.

   The war on terrorism proceeds. The Congress is receiving top secret briefings from the Secretary of Defense and the FBI Director almost weekly. The country is on a heightened state of alert.

   On March 21, 2002, the President submitted a supplemental budget request to prosecute that war.

   The principal components of the President's budget request included $14 billion for the Department of Defense; $5.3 billion for homeland defense, including $4.4 billion for the recently established Transportation Security Administration, $5.5 billion for New York in response to the September 11 attacks, $1.6 billion for international emergencies.

   This supplemental bill provides for those emergencies, as requested by the President.

   Just today, President Bush said, ``We've still got threats to the homeland that we've got to deal with, and it's very important for us not to hamper our ability to wage that war. .....''

   That is exactly what the supplemental appropriations deals with--homeland security.

   The supplemental bill includes $8.35 billion for homeland defense, and increase of $3 billion over the budget request. This $3 billion focuses on problems that were identified during our homeland defense hearings.

   Our committee held very extensive hearings. We heard from the first responders, the state and local law enforcement personnel, the fire and medical personnel, individuals representing the ports, and those who had concerns about cyber security and the security of our nuclear weapons facilities and nuclear labs. We heard from those who are concerned about border security, airport security, food and agricultural safety, nuclear non-proliferation programs, and the vulnerability of our water systems. We heard from seven cabinet secretaries and the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

   All of this information led us to formulate a supplemental appropriations bill which cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee by a recorded vote of twenty-nine to zero.

   Highlights include: $1.0 billion, $646 million above the request for first responder programs such as firefighting grants, State and local law enforcement grants, grants to State and local governments to fix the interoperability problem between State and local police, fire and medical personnel, emergency planning grants, funds to increase the number of FEMA search and rescue teams that have the training and equipment to combat biological, chemical and nuclear attacks and funds to make sure that we have standards for interoperable equipment; $970 million, $716 million above the request for port security including grants to improve security at ports, for increased Coast Guard surveillance, for increased Customs funding to improve container inspections overseas and to improve our technology on inspecting containers; $387 million of unrequested funds for bioterrorism, including funds to improve our toxicology and infectious disease lab capacity at the Centers for Disease Control; $200 million, $174 million above the request for security at our nuclear weapons facilities and nuclear labs; $154 million, $135 million above the request for cyber security, with a special emphasis on helping the private sector defend itself from attack; $125 million, $84 million above the request for border security, including resources for INS facilities on the borders and for deploying the system for rapid response criminal background checks to 30 more ports; $100 million of unrequested funds for nuclear nonproliferation programs; $265 million of unrequested funds for airport security, including $100 million to help airports meet the new Federal standards for airport security; $200 million for USDA for food safety labs, additional food inspectors, and for vulnerability assessments for rural water systems; $100 million for EPA to complete vulnerability assessments on the security of our water systems; and $286 million is provided for other homeland defense items such as Secret Service efforts to combat electronic crime, FBI counterterrorism efforts and funds for the Justice Department to develop an integrated information system.

   The bill fully funds the President's $4.4 billion request for the new Transportation Security Administration, unlike the House which cuts the request by $550 million.

   Just within the past few days, Vice President Cheney warned that a terrorist strike within our shores is ``almost certain.'' Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stated that it is inevitable that terrorists will acquire weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of State Colin Powell warned that ``terrorists are trying every way they can'' to get nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Security has been tightened around New York City landmarks. And Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said that, ``While we prepare for another terrorist attack, we need to understand that it is not a question of if, but a question of when.''

   The warnings are clear. The danger is real. We should act, not delay. We should protect lives, not play politics. I urge Senators to move forward with this supplemental bill and to do so quickly.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of our Appropriations Committee for his kind remarks and join him in recommending the bill to the Senate that we will debate when we return.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, recently, the news website NewsMax.com ran a vary comprehensive article called ``India: Allies or Instigators?'' It details India's pattern of abuse against the Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, and other minorities, its anti-Americanism, and its support of terrorism against its neighbors.

The article shows that the Indian government has killed tens of thousands of Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, and other minorities; that it holds tens of thousands of political prisoners; and it is funding terrorism in Pakistan and created and supported the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), an organization the U.S. government has called a ``terrorist'' organization. It shows India's domestic terrorism against Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, and all the other minority groups.

Reading this article should cause any fair-minded reader to ask whether or not India is a terrorist state seeking hegemony in South Asia and questions whether India is a country we should trust as an ally. The United States should work for freedom for all the people of the subcontinent. I was proud to be one of 42 Members of Congress from both parties who signed a letter urging President Bush to press for the release of Sikh and other political prisoners in India. The Administration should do that. But it should do more. After reading this article, it is clearly time for the U.S. government to cut off its aid to India and to come out in support of self-determination for all the peoples and nations of South Asia. This is the best way to spread liberty, democracy, prosperity, and true stability to the subcontinent. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place the article into the RECORD at this time. I urge my colleagues and all people interested in South Asian affairs to read it.

INDIA: ALLIES OR INSTIGATORS?
(By Tim Phares)

Trouble is brewing again in South Asia, as India and Pakistan move troops to their border. The recent violence in Gujarat, in which over 540 people have been killed, has merely heightened tensions. It follows an attack by Muslims on a train full of Hindu activists headed for Ayodhya, where the BJP government in India is seeking to build a Hindu temple on the site where the most revered mosque in India was destroyed by Hindu militants a few years ago. It was reported that the passengers were taunting the Muslims by chanting slogans about rebuilding the temple.

Unfortunately, India, which proclaims itself ``the world's largest democracy,'' has made moves that undermine America's war on terrorism. Indian military maneuvers have forced Pakistan to divert troops from the border with Afghanistan to the Line of Control in Kashmir, creating a potential opening for terrorists to escape. On January 2, Tony Blankley wrote in the Washington Times that India is sponsoring cross-border terrorism in the Pakistani province of Sindh. Journalist Tavleen Singh has reported in India's leading newsmagazine, India Today, that the Indian government created the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which the U.S. government has identified as a ``terrorist organization.'' According to Internet journalist Justin Raimondo, the Indian Defense Minister, George Fernandes, raised money and arms for the LTTE.

Pakistan and minorities within India's borders charge that India is seeking hegemony in the South Asian subcontinent. Certainly its deployment of new missiles that can reach deep into Pakistan and its tests that began the nuclear escalation in the region suggest that this may be true.

While India blames Pakistan for the attack on its Parliament, President Pervez Musharraf says he has evidence that the Indian government itself was responsible. No Indian soldiers were killed, just guards, workers, and other lower-caste people.

The book Soft Target, written by Canadian journalists Brian McAndrew of the Toronto Star and Zuhair Kashmeri of the Toronto Globe and Mail, shows that India blew up its own airliner in 1985, killing 329 people, apparently in order to blame Sikhs for the atrocity and create a pretext for more violence against them. It shows that the Indian Consul General in Toronto pulled his daughter off the flight shortly before it was due to depart. An auto dealer who was a friend of the Consul General also cancelled his reservation at the last minute. Surinder Singh, director of North American Affairs for the External Affairs office in New Delhi, also cancelled his reservation on that flight. The Consul General also called to finger a suspect in the case before the public knew that the bombing had taken place. The book quotes an agent of the Canadian State Investigative Service (CSIS) as saying, ``If you really want to clear the incidents quickly. take vans down to the Indian High Commission and the consulates in Toronto and Vancouver, load up everybody and take them down for questioning. We know it and they know it that they are involved.''

India has a long record of Anti-Americanism. On May 18, 1999, The Indian Express reported that Mr. Fernandes, the Defense Minister, organized and led a meeting with the Ambassadors from Red China, Cuba, Russia, Yugoslavia, Libya, and Iraq to discuss setting up a security alliance ``to stop the U.S.''

India votes against the United States at the United Nations more often than any country except Cuba. It had a long term friendship with the former Soviet Union and supported its invasion of Afghanistan. India's implicit support for terrorist activity is consistent with its internal behavior. It has a record of repression of minorities that undermines its proclamation of democratic values.

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which leads a 23-party coalition, is a branch of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), an organization founded in 1925 in support of the Fascists. The governing ideology of the BJP and all the branches of the RSS is Hindutva, the subjugation of society, politics, and culture to Hinduism. Last year, a cabinet member said that everyone living in India must either be a Hindu or be subservient to Hinduism. And in New York in 2000, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee said, ``I will always be a Swayamsewak.'' This is the ideology behind the attacks on Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, and other minorities. The target of choice these days seems to be Christians. Human-rights organizations report that more than 200,000 Christians in Negaland have been killed by the Indian government.

On February 17, the Associated Press reported an attack on the Catholic church on the outskirts of Bangalore in which several people were injured. The assailants threw stones at the church, then broke in, breaking furniture and smashing windows before attacking worshipers. the February 25 issue of the Washington Times reported another church attack in which 20 people were wounded.

In February, two church workers and a teenage boy were shot at while they prayed. The boy was injured. Two Christian missionaries were beaten with iron rods while they rode their bicycles home. A Christian cemetery in Port Blair was vandalized.

These attacks continue a pattern of oppression of Christians that has been going on heavily since Christmas 1998. Since then, members of the RSS have murdered priests, raped nuns, burned churches, and committed other atrocities with impunity.

The RSS published a booklet last year detailing how to file false criminal cases against Christians and other religious minorities. The RSS objects to the presence of missionaries in India.

The missionaries are having a good deal of success in converting members of the lower castes, especially Dalits, also known as ``Untouchables.'' This removes the lower-caste people from the stratification of the caste system, which is essential to the Hindu religion and social structure. RSS activists also burned a missionary and his two sons to death while they slept in their jeep. They surrounded the jeep and chanted ``Victory to Hannuman,'' a Hindu god. Now the Indian authorities have found a single individual to blame and they are moving to throw the missionary's widow out of the country. In 1997, Indian police broke up a Christian religious festival with gunfire.

In 1994, the U.S. State Department reported that the Indian government paid out over 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for killing members of the Sikh minority. In the same year, the Indian newspaper Hitavada reported that the Indian government paid the late governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, the equivalent of $1.5 billion to foment terrorist activity in Punjab and in Kashmir.

According to the book The Politics of Genocide, over 250,000 Sikhs have been killed by the Indian government's forces. According to human-rights groups, Indian forces have killed over 75,000 Muslims in Kashmir and thousands of other minorities, including Dalit ``untouchables,'' Tamils, and other groups. A report issued last year by the Movement Against State Repression (MASR) showed that India admitted to holding 52,268 political prisoners. Amnesty International reports that tens of thousands of other minorities are also being held as political prisoners.

These prisoners continue to be held under a law called the ``Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act'' (TADA), which expired in 1995, It empowered the government to hold people virtually indefinitely for any offense or for no offense at all. According to many reports, some of these political prisoners have been in custody for almost two decades. Amnesty International reported last year that tens of thousands of minorities are big held as political prisoners. On February 28, 42 Members of the U.S. Congress wrote to President Bush asking him to work for freedom for these political prisoners. MASR also co-sponsored with the Punjab Human Rights Organization an Investigation of the March 2000 massacre of 35 Sikhs in Chithisinghpora. It concluded that Indian forces carried out the massacre. A separate investigation conducted by the International Human Rights Organization came to the same conclusion. As Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Cal.) said on the floor of Congress on August 2, 1999, ``for the people in Kashmir and Punjab and Jammu, India might as well be Nazi Germany.''

In the words of Narinder Singh, a spokesman for the Golden Temple, the seat of the Sikh religion, who was interviewed in August 1997 by National Public Radio, ``The Indian government, all the time they boast that they are secular, that they are democratic. But they have nothing to do with a democracy, nothing to do with a secularism. They just kill Sikhs to please the majority.''

In the March 4 issue of Forbes, Steve Forbes compared India to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, arguing that as a multinational State, India is inherently unstable. Prior to the British conquest of the subcontinent, there was no political entity called India. It was a series of princely states brought together by the British.

The Kashmiri people were promised a referendum on their status in 1948, but that vote has never been held. The Sikhs, who were supposed to receive independence, have never had any of their representatives sign the Indian constitution. Instead of respecting ``the glow of freedom'' that Nehru and Patel promised the Sikhs, the government declared them a ``criminal class'' as the ink was dry on the constitution. Currently, 17 freedom movements are going on within India's borders.

Some Members of Congress have called for sanctions against India and for an end to American aid. Some have also endorsed self-determination for the peoples seeking freedom from India through a plebiscite on independence. While these events seem unlikely to occur any time soon, the Indian government has held negotiations with the freedom fighters in predominantly Christian Nagaland. Home Minister L.K. Advani recently admitted that if Kashmir achieves freedom (which now seems more likely than ever), it will cause India to break apart. Some experts have predicted that within a decade, neither India nor Pakistan will exist in the form we know them presently. The Indian subcontinent will continue to be a region that bears close attention by American policymakers.

4B) America Should Not Instigate War Against Iraq
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, ever since the Gulf War ended in 1991, the U.S. has been spending about $4 million a day enforcing a no-flight zone in Iraq , $4 million a day. This has been a tremendous waste of money and manpower.

   I believe almost all Americans would have preferred that this 12 or $13 billion that has been spent over these years would have been spent in almost any other good way. Most Americans have not even noticed that we have been dropping bombs and still shooting at missile sites all these years in Iraq . I remember reading a front page lengthy story about a group of Iraqi boys we accidentally killed there.

   Now there are some people here in Washington who seem to be clamoring for us to go to war against Iraq . I represent a very patriotic pro-military district in Tennessee. My people will strongly support our troops if we go to war. But I can assure you that as I go around my district I hear no clamor or even a weak desire to go to war against Iraq .

   Saudi Arabia had much more to do with the September 11 tragedies than Iraq did. I heard yesterday that one of the main financial backers of the terrorists is from Kuwait. Yet we are not talking about going to war against Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, nor should we. We have been too quick to get involved in ethnic or religious disputes around the world. We have been too quick to drop bombs on people who want to be our friends. We turned NATO from a defensive organization into an offensive one in Bosnia.

   Chris Matthews on ``Hard Ball'' the other night said, ``In the past we always had the world on our side because we did not go to war unless we were attacked.''

   He strongly questioned this eagerness to go to war against Iraq . He said in a recent column that the American people are being ``herded into war.'' A war that he says will just lead to more hatred of the U.S.

   David Ignatius, the nationally syndicated columnist for the New York Herald Tribune and The Washington Post wrote on March 15: ``How can the United States sell a war against Iraq to skeptical Arabs and Europeans? A good start would be to level with them and admit there is no solid evidence linking Baghdad to Osama bin Laden's terrorists attacks against America.''

   The Joint Chiefs of Staff have questioned this eagerness to go to war against Iraq . Yesterday, William Raspberry, the very highly respected columnist for The Washington Post, in a nationally syndicated column repeated words he had written a dozen years ago. He wrote: ``The prospect of a bloody war with no price worth the tens of thousands of American lives it would cost can make you a little nervous. I am getting a little nervous. It is not that I doubt the ability of America's fighting forces to take out a third-rate power like Saddam Hussein's Iraq . My doubts concern the purpose for doing so. Saddam is being described as a ruthless and power-mad tyrant bent on achieving political control of the Arab world. I do not question the description, but it does seem to me that most of the current saber rattling is coming from Washington, not Bagdad.'' And Mr. Raspberry continued: ``I wrote those words a dozen years back when the first President Bush was contemplating the invasion of Iraq . Why are we rattling sabers now? The reason I recall my earlier doubts is that they are so much a carbon copy of my present ones.'' Mr. Raspberry says: ``Maybe it was a mistake not to wipe out the last scrap of Iraq's military power back then, not to mow down the surrendering republican guard like shooting fish in a barrel. But surely the failure to do so then cannot justify a unilateral attack now.''

   Mr. Raspberry said: ``We should not become the playground bully of the word.'' In 1990, Saddam Hussein, who I am not praising or defending in any way, had invaded Kuwait and was threatening to go further.

   We had to act and I voted for the original Gulf War. However, we later found out the Iraqi military strength had been greatly exaggerated. The so-called ``elite'' Praetorian Guards were surrendering to CNN camera crews or anybody who would take them. Hussein has been greatly weakened since then in almost every way. Let us not exaggerate his strength this time. If he starts to attack us, I will be the first to support a war effort, but please let us not provoke war. Let us not change the name of the Department of Defense into the War Department once again. We should not try to be the policemen of the world. We should try as hard as we can to reestablish our reputation as the most peace-loving Nation on the face of the Earth.

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.