[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9439-9457]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                RECEPTION OF FORMER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER of the House presided.
  The SPEAKER. On behalf of the Chair and this Chamber, I consider it a 
high honor and certainly a distinct personal privilege to have the 
opportunity to welcome so many of our former Members and colleagues as 
may be present here for this occasion. Thank you very much for being 
here.
  I especially want to welcome Matt McHugh, President of the Former 
Members Association, and John Erlenborn, Vice President and presiding 
officer, here this morning.
  This is my first Former Members Day since becoming Speaker in 
January, and since that time I have gained an even greater appreciation 
for the traditions and the rules of the House. I appreciate all the 
efforts of the members of the association who spend so much time 
enhancing the reputation of the House of Representatives.
  The House is the foremost example of democracy in this world. The 
debates we have here are important to the future of our Nation. I hope 
that my tenure as Speaker reflects the best traditions of this House 
and the best hopes of the American people.
  Once again, I want to thank all the former Members for their good 
work in promoting the history and enhancing the reputation of the 
United States House of Representatives. Thank you very much for being 
here today.
  The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey), the majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I, too, would like to welcome you all back home.
  I see so many good friends here. I see my friend and neighbor, Jim 
Wright. It was not long after we took the majority and I had the 
privilege of assuming these duties, Jim Wright called me up and said, 
``Dick, how are you getting along? Have you learned anything in your 
new role?'' I said, ``Yes, I learned I should have had more respect for 
Jim Wright.''
  It was a tough job. We all have undertaken hard work and good work 
here. We have all made our commitment in this body on behalf of things 
we believed in, not always in agreement with one another.
  I remember my good friend Ron Dellums. At one time I was so 
exasperated with Ron, I said, ``You know Ron, you are so misguided, you 
think I am misguided.'' He acknowledged I was probably correct on that. 
But we did I think for a very good part of the time manage our 
differences of opinion in a gentlemanly fashion.
  I see Billy Broomfield there, my mentor, trying to teach me. Jim, you 
do not realize how much time Bill Broomfield spent trying to teach me 
to mind my manners.
  But we did that sort of thing for one another, did we not? Encourage, 
restrain, sometimes advise, sometimes scold, but I think all of us can 
look back. You have an advantage. You have a way of looking back and 
saying how proud you were for what you were able to do for the vision 
you have held.
  I think if I can speak for all of us here, I certainly know the 
Speaker made reference to it, we want to do our job now, and we will do 
it with rigor, and we will probably do it with excessive vigor, but 
always we want to do it in such a way that when you turn on your TV 
sets and you look in, you remember the honor you feel and felt that you 
see us, and we find that you are not embarrassed by the way we conduct 
business in your House.
  So welcome back, and I hope you have a good day.
  The SPEAKER. It is a great pleasure to introduce the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), a good friend of mine, who usually sits on the 
other side of the aisle, the minority whip of the U.S. House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. BONIOR. Good morning. It is nice to see so many familiar faces.

[[Page 9440]]

  Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the time to express my welcome 
to so many dear friends who I have not seen in such a long time.
  Dick Gephardt wanted me to extend to you his very best. He is at a 
very special occasion today as well. His daughter is graduating from 
Vanderbilt, the last of his children to graduate from college, so he is 
down in Tennessee today on that joyous occasion. He wanted me to let 
you know how much he appreciates your service to this country and how 
honored he is that you would come back and share in this special day 
today.
  Let me just say something about the Speaker while I am here, because 
I think it is appropriate. You would not be here if you did not love 
this institution in a very special way, and all who have served here 
over the years have a very special feeling for this place.
  I am just very honored to serve with Speaker Dennis Hastert.  He is a 
person that has brought stability to this institution in the time that 
he has been serving as Speaker of the House. He is trusted on our side 
of the aisle. He is respected. He conducts himself in a way that serves 
this institution proud. You can have a conversation with him, and he 
levels with you in a way that allows you to continue to do business. 
That is refreshing, and it is something that those of us on our side of 
the aisle appreciate.
  I just wanted him to know that, and I wanted you to know that, 
because we have had some rough days around here, as you undoubtedly 
know, in the last decade. As Dick Armey said, we want to get on with 
the business of the country, and I think he is providing a chance for 
us to do that. I wanted the Speaker to know that and you to know that 
we appreciate the fact that he is leading us in a way that shows 
respect and decorum and respect for the other side's views on issues.
  I am reminded of the enormous debt we owe to those with whom we serve 
and to those who came before us, because it is this continuity that 
this Congress provides over time that really is the fiber and the 
strength that endows our democracy with its resilience.
  So to all of you, let me say thank you for your sacrifices that you 
have made, for the energy that you have devoted, for the ideas and the 
passions that you have brought to this institution.
  Let me also at this time also thank my dear friend and my mentor, 
someone whom I would not be here in the position that I have today if 
it was not for, Jim Wright.
  Mr. Speaker, I have always been inspired by your courage, by your 
passion, by your commitment, your idealism, your statesmanship, and I 
just want you to know how much I feel indebted to your service to our 
Nation, to this institution, and I want you to know how deeply my 
colleagues feel, particularly those who have served with you.
  Your commitment to justice, not only in America but in Central 
America and other places around the world that we worked on, is 
something I will always remember and cherish for the rest of my life. 
So we thank you so much.
  Let me just say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that we wish you all the 
best. We look forward to, hopefully, getting to say hello during the 
day and hope you have a good day with us. Thank you.
  The SPEAKER. The Chair now has the great privilege to introduce and 
recognize the honorable gentleman from Illinois, John Erlenborn, the 
Vice President of the Association, to take the Chair.
  Mr. ERLENBORN (presiding). Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  The Chair directs the Clerk to call the roll of former Members of 
Congress.
  The Clerk called the roll of the former Members of Congress, and the 
following former Members answered to their names:


  Rollcall of Former Members of Congress Attending 29th Annual Spring 
                         Meeting, May 13, 1999

  Bill Alexander of Arkansas;
  J. Glenn Beall of Maryland;
  Tom Bevill of Alabama;
  David R. Bowen of Mississippi;
  William Broomfield of Michigan;
  Donald G. Brotzman of Colorado;
  Jack Buechner of Missouri;
  Albert G. Bustamante of Texas;
  Elford A. Cederberg of Michigan;
  Charles E. Chamberlain of Michigan;
  R. Lawrence Coughlin of Pennsylvania;
  N. Neiman Craley, Jr. of Pennsylvania;
  Robert W. Daniel, Jr. of Virginia;
  E. Kika de la Garza of Texas;
  Joseph J. Dioguardi of New York;
  James Dunn of Michigan;
  Mickey Edwards of Oklahoma;
  John Erlenborn of Illinois;
  Louis Frey, Jr. of Florida;
  Robert Giaimo of Connecticut;
  Kenneth J. Gray of Illinois;
  Gilbert Gude of Maryland;
  Orval Hansen of Idaho;
  Dennis Hertel of Michigan;
  George J. Hochbruechner of New York;
  Elizabeth Holtzman of New York;
  William J. Hughes of New Jersey;
  John W. Jenrette, Jr. of South Carolina;
  David S. King of Utah;
  Herbert C. Klein of New Jersey;
  Ray Kogovsek of Colorado;
  Peter N. Kyros of Maine;
  Larry LaRocco of Idaho;
  Claude ``Buddy'' Leach of Louisiana;
  Marilyn Lloyd of Tennessee;
  Catherine S. Long of Louisiana;
  M. Dawson Mathis of Georgia;
  Romano L. Mazzoli of Kentucky;
  Matt McHugh of New York;
  Robert H. Michel of Illinois;
  Abner J. Mikva of Illinois;
  Norman Y. Mineta of California;
  John S. Monagan of Connecticut;
  G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery of Mississippi;
  Thomas G. Morris of New Mexico;
  Frank Moss of Utah;
  John M. Murphy of New York;
  Dick Nichols of Kansas;
  Mary Rose Oakar of Ohio;
  Stan Parris of Virginia;
  Howard Pollock of Alaska;
  Marty Russo of Illinois;
  Ronald A. Sarasin of Connecticut;
  Bill Sarpalius of Texas;
  Dick Schulze of Pennsylvania;
  Carlton R. Sickles of Maryland;
  Paul Simon of Illinois;
  Jim Slattery of Kansas;
  Lawrence J. Smith of Florida;
  James V. Stanton of Ohio;
  James W. Symington of Missouri;
  Robin Tallon of South Carolina;
  Harold L. Volkmer of Missouri;
  Charles W. Whalen, Jr. of Ohio;
  Alan Wheat of Missouri;
  Jim Wright of Texas;
  Joe Wyatt, Jr. of Texas.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. From the calling of the roll, 55 Members of 
the Association have registered their presence.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, the Honorable 
Matthew McHugh, President of our Association--excuse me, who wrote this 
script? I know it is New York. The gentleman is recognized for such 
time as he may consume and to yield to other Members for appropriate 
remarks.
  Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. You are a very 
distinguished leader, and I am ready for retirement in Florida, I 
suppose.
  It is a delight for all of us and a real honor to be here to present 
our 29th annual report to the Congress.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  Mr. ERLENBORN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, we want to especially thank the Speaker for 
being here to greet us and to thank the Minority Leader and all the 
Members of Congress in fact for giving us the privilege to be here in 
this institution that we know and love.
  We were pleased also to hear the remarks not only of the Speaker but 
of the Majority Leader and Minority Whip, Mr. Bonior, not only because 
they welcomed us so warmly but because the positive tone of those 
remarks is encouraging to many of us. I think we have been concerned 
about the increasing partisanship that has

[[Page 9441]]

characterized much of the debate in Congress in recent times. Strong 
arguments on policy differences are healthy, and we expect that, but 
the negative tone has at times seemed excessive. This, together with 
some of the negative campaigning, I think has contributed to some of 
the public displeasure with politics and government.
  I say that because, in this context, it was very encouraging to many 
of us when the Speaker and the Minority Leader opened the Congress. I 
am sure many of you watched this on TV, or perhaps were here yourselves 
personally, but they were eloquent really in pledging to work 
cooperatively to establish a much more positive climate in the 
Congress. They did not disavow their contrasting views, which was 
appropriate, but they did commit to restoring a more congenial spirit 
in which lively debate and legislative action could proceed.
  I mention this in part because the Association of Former Members 
subsequently joined with the Council for Excellence in Government in 
publicly commending the leaders for getting the new Congress off to 
such a positive start, and we also offered to work in some constructive 
way with them to foster this positive climate.
  For example, we proposed that we cosponsor with them a joint town 
meeting, perhaps on a college campus, at which the Speaker and the 
Minority Leader could appear together and talk about this Congress and 
the agenda that they will be pursuing. This was just one idea, and it 
is entirely up to them as to whether they want to take us up on that 
offer. But I think the point we want to make is that as an Association, 
on a bipartisan basis, we want to encourage them not to agree on all of 
the issues they have legitimate disagreements on, but we want to 
encourage them to promote even further this climate of positive debate 
in terms of the issues.
  We discussed this issue, if you recall, at our last Association 
annual meeting a year ago, and at that time we talked about ways in 
which we might come up with some concrete proposals to help the 
leadership in this respect, and I report to you on this as a follow-up 
to that discussion.
  Our most important activity perhaps is our Congress to Campus 
Program, which continues to reach out to citizens across the country, 
particularly to our college students. We believe that this effort 
conveys important insights about the Congress and promotes a much more 
positive view on the part of the public of the institution of the 
Congress.
  As you know, what we do is send out bipartisan teams, a Republican 
and a Democrat who served in the Congress, to make 2\1/2\ days of 
meetings available to not only students on college campuses but to 
others in the community; and through these formal and informal meetings 
we share our firsthand experiences of the operations of the Congress 
and our democratic form of government.
  Since this was initiated in 1976, 113 former Members of Congress have 
reached more than 150,000 students through 259 visits to 177 campuses 
in 49 States and the District of Columbia.
  Beginning with the 96-97 academic year, the Congress to Campus 
Program has been conducted jointly with the Stennis Center for Public 
Service in Mississippi. The former Members of Congress donate their 
time to this program, the Stennis Center pays transportation costs, and 
the hosting institution provides room and board for the visiting former 
Members.
  This is something which I know some of you have participated in. We 
certainly encourage others of you to let us know if you would like to 
do that. Those of us who have done it have enjoyed it very much, and I 
am sure all of you would as well.
  What I would like to do at this point is yield to the gentleman from 
Missouri, Jack Buechner, and to the gentleman from Idaho, Larry 
LaRocco, who will discuss briefly their recent visits to college 
communities under this program. Jack.
  Mr. BUECHNER. I thank our current President, Mr. McHugh, for giving 
you an outline about the program that has been so successful, and it 
has been successful not just for the students at the various colleges 
and universities that we have been able to meet with but also I think 
for us, because it gives us an opportunity to find out what the current 
pulse is on the campuses of America.
  It is kind of funny, I just returned from Macalester College, where I 
worked with Jerry Patterson from California. While we were there, there 
was an anti-war demonstration, with American flags upside down and 
peace signs and body bags painted with red paint. It sort of was ``deja 
vu all over again,'' as Yogi Berra would say, to think back into the 
sixties. But it was students expressing their opinions, and they were 
politically active.
  For 2\1/2\ days we sat down with various members of the Political 
Science Department, the Geography Department, the Social Studies 
Department, student government leaders, leaders of the Young Democrats 
and the two members of the Young Republicans, and we discussed the 
various issues that are currently before Congress, before our executive 
branch, talking about Kosovo, talking about why we choose to intervene 
in central Europe and not in Africa. But there was a vibrancy and 
interest in current affairs that I think would belie what a lot of 
people in America would consider to be a generation more interested in 
computers, more interested in a lot of different things, perhaps too 
much me-tooism and not enough our-ism.
  I think that perhaps is just one campus in Minnesota that I can 
report on, but I found the same thing last year when we went down to 
Florida International University.
  This is such a good program that I would just tell every member of 
the Association that you should get involved in it. The problem, of 
course, is that we have got more campuses want to have Members attend 
than we have Members to attend and finances to cover those.
  But it really is a fantastic program. As we stayed up late talking 
with the students, we found out that there are many questions that are 
not being answered by our leaders today to the interests that these 
students have, and they are looking for a forum in which to express it.
  One forum they expressed it in was a recent election in Minnesota 
where we saw the election of the only Reform Party Governor. I was 
tempted, and I succumbed to it, to buy a bumper strip as I left the 
airport that said ``Our Governor Can Beat Up Your Governor.''

                              {time}  0930

  But these students had basically said that the two political parties, 
the mainstream parties, had not offered to them either the chance to 
participate, and I think that was the interesting thing, the chance to 
be active in the campaign, not just handing out fliers, but truly 
active and going and getting other people involved, either working on 
an Internet web site program in answering responses, to going to 
rallies in a fashion that was more participatory than just observatory.
  These students taught me a lot about why Jesse won in Minnesota, and 
they weren't all Minnesotans, but they were involved in that campaign, 
and there is a lesson for us to learn there. But we do not learn unless 
we talk to people like that, whether they are our children, whether 
they are our neighbors, whether they are our old constituents, or 
whether we are visiting a college somewhere else.
  With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
LaRocco). I notice that all of these people in the gallery came here 
thinking that they were going to see the Indy 500, but they are seeing 
a used car lot.
  But I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. LaROCCO. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding. It is 
my pleasure and honor today to report to my colleagues on one example 
of the Association's Congress to Campus Program. The Congress to Campus 
Program is an innovation of the Association to send bipartisan teams of 
two former Members of Congress to campuses across the country to meet 
with students and local residents to speak about the Congress and the 
rewards of public service.

[[Page 9442]]

  One such engagement took former Congressman John Erlenborn of 
Illinois, the gentleman in the chair, and myself to Denison University 
outside of Columbus, Ohio last October. This was not the first visit of 
our Members to Denison University, nor will it be the last, I am sure.
  The visit to this outstanding institution was arranged in several 
ways that I would like to explain to the Members. First, many former 
Members express their interest to the Association in traveling to 
campuses across the country. They just sort of tell the Association 
that they are willing to pack their bags and go, and then our 
Association Executive Director, Linda Reed, matches the dates of the 
Members' availability with the dates for the visit requested by the 
host campus, assuring the bipartisan composition of the team.
  Second, the logistics in scheduling are coordinated by William 
``Brother'' Rogers at the Stennis Center for Public Service at 
Mississippi State University. He works with the college administrators 
on campuses such as Denison to ensure that our time is productively 
used and, indeed, it was on this occasion.
  Third, someone such as Professor Emmett Buell, Jr. at Denison 
University coordinates the on-site visit. Professor Buell is no 
stranger to our Congress to Campus Program as the founder of the Lugar 
College Intern Program, and this program is named after Senator Lugar 
of Indiana, a Denison graduate.
  The Denison University visit is a premier example of what takes place 
on campus during such a visit. Our stay was by no means a quick one and 
our schedule looked a lot like schedules that we have all experienced. 
You get up early in the morning, you have your dates, and we go to 
classes all day, meeting with large classes and small classes, making 
arrangements to go out and meet with the residents, having interviews, 
for example, with the local newspaper and also the campus newspaper.
  I think that our visit to Denison University could best be 
characterized as one where we acted a little bit like our Chaplain 
mentioned today, Dr. Camp, about the ripple effect, that we have served 
and been in public service and have been part of our government, and 
that ripple effect, it is our responsibility to go out and talk about 
public service, and we did that all day long for a day and a half.
  I am reminded of our former Speaker Carl Albert's book, The Little 
Giant, where he was driven to public service and to serve in Congress 
because of a visit by a Congressman when he was in grammar school. I 
think that is the purpose of our visits, to go out to these campuses 
and make sure that people know that public service is indeed a great 
calling.
  Now, the questions that we got at Denison University ranged all the 
way from campaign finance reform to, of course, the bipartisanship that 
is needed in Congress to effectively run the government, and the 
concerns about some of the lack of civility that they were observing 
here in the House of Representatives and in the Congress in general. We 
had challenges to meet those questions, but the two of us, meeting 
together on a bipartisan basis, I think showed that there was a way 
that we could come together and work together and explain our 
government to them.
  Our experiences were totally different. John Erlenborn's experience, 
for example, in going to Congress, where a Democrat had never served in 
that seat, and my experience in Idaho, being from a marginal district, 
was totally different. I think the students at Denison University 
appreciated that, knowing that there are different districts in the 
United States and people come to Congress with different experiences.
  This was my second Congress to Campus Program that I participated in. 
I have been out to Claremont, McKenna University in earlier years, and 
I hope to do many more. So I encourage my colleagues to look into this 
program, to go out and use the ripple effect that we have been 
admonished and encouraged to do so today by our chaplain, and let us go 
out and spread the word that public service is indeed a very high 
calling, that this Congress and this House of Representatives is the 
best democratic institution in the world, and that we are proud to have 
served here, as I know we all are.
  I yield back to our President, Matt McHugh.
  Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much, Larry and Jack. As most of you know, 
the Association is not funded by the Congress, and therefore, in order 
to conduct our educational programs, programs like the Congress to 
Campus Program and others, we need to initiate fund-raising efforts and 
raise the money ourselves. As part of that effort, in 1998, we 
initiated an annual fund-raising dinner and auction which we repeated 
earlier this year on February 23. Both of these dinners, if my 
colleagues attended, they know were quite successful, both socially and 
financially, and we owe much of that success to the chair of those two 
dinners, the gentleman from Florida, Lou Frey, who is our former 
President of the Association as well.
  So I would like to invite the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frey) to 
not only tell us about this year's dinner, but also to alert us to next 
year's dinner.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. FREY. I am delighted you are now a resident of Florida, Matt.
  We did have a very successful Second Annual Statesmanship Award 
Dinner at Union Station. We had about 400 people there, including 
sitting Members of Congress, and it was a great evening. The auctions 
are fun, a lot of stuff there that people buy, which always amazes us, 
but a lot of things we have in our closets are really valuable, and we 
did something unique for the first time. Cokie Roberts was named the 
first honorary member of the Association. She has been wonderful 
working with us. We surprised her. I think it is the first time she did 
not know a secret up on the Hill, but she was given the award.
  Lee Hamilton, who many of us served with over the years, was given 
the award. Lee made about a 20-minute speech. I think he told more 
jokes in those 20 minutes than he did in the last 35 years in the 
House. It was a great speech, and really again, a lot of fun.
  The main beneficiary of this dinner is our Congress to Campus 
Program, and the University of Mississippi helps us and works with us 
and does some things, but it is really up to us to raise the bulk of 
the money. We donate our time, because there are expenses and 
everything involved, so this dinner is crucial to our success. I have 
the good fortune to tell my colleagues that the next dinner will be on 
the 22nd of February at the Willard Hotel.
  We need your help. We really need your help. We had a great committee 
last time to work with it. Jack Buechner and Jim Slattery were the 
chairs of the dinner. Larry LaRocco chaired the auction, helped by Dick 
Schulze who, by the way, it was Dick's idea to get this thing going. He 
was the one who came up with it, and we owe a great deal to Dick for 
doing that.
  Matt McHugh and Dennis Hertel worked on the Steering Committee. We 
also have, by the way, if you ever need somebody, call on Larry or 
Jimmy Hayes to do your auctions. They are great. They run the live 
auction. We do not understand what they say, but they really sold a 
bunch of stuff.
  Tom Railsback, for instance, gave us a gavel that was used in the 
impeachment of Richard Nixon that Peter Rodino had given him, and that 
was really quite a thing. We had a picture taken at the Bush Library 
taken of the Presidents and all the First Ladies there, and it was 
autographed by every one of those people. It took us a year to get it, 
and that was auctioned off. We had baseballs and footballs by 
everybody. So look in your attics for me, will you, or your basements 
and find something, at least just one thing. I do not want coffee cups, 
I do not want key chains, and I do not want a picture of you alone. As 
much as I love you, I do not want it of you alone. I want it with 
somebody, preferably a President, or unless it is you, Sonny, your 
picture I can put on my wall. Big red machine, right?

[[Page 9443]]

  It is really important that we do it, and it is important you get 
some tickets. We have 10 months to do this thing. Bell Atlantic, Tom 
Tauke of our Members, was a prime sponsor, which was a great thing, but 
if you would all just sell a couple of tickets it would make our job 
really a lot easier, and it is really key.
  One other thing I would like to mention we have been working on for 
three years and I will just throw in, maybe some of you know or do not 
know, some of you have written chapters for it, we have a book we have 
written which will be published in October, and there are about 20 
Members of the Association already who have gotten chapters in. Liz 
Holtzman just promised me that she would get her chapter in, and that 
is on the record now, Liz, and we have time if anybody else wants to do 
it. We have a publisher. This is not something that is not going to 
happen.
  The need for this book came about in some of our Congress to Campus 
Program visits where we have great books. Jim Wright has written a 
great book, we have a number of people who have done it, but there is 
not any book that is a compendium of the Congress looking at it from a 
personal standpoint. All of the political science professors said hey, 
we really need something like this. So it is there. You have about 30 
to 60 days to get a chapter written. If you want to grab me after this, 
please do that.
  One last thing I would just like to say. I think it is just great 
that Speaker Wright is here. I really enjoyed the remarks that were 
made by the Speaker, the majority leader and the minority leader. I 
think like you, I love this place. It has been a real privilege to 
serve here, and you know, I am proud of it as you are, and it is just 
fun to see so many old friends. Thank you very much.
  Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much, Lou. We hope that all of you will be 
at the dinner next year, February 22. Lou really has done a magnificent 
job in heading up that dinner for two years in a row, and it is a fun 
time.
  We have talked about our Congress to Campus Program, which is our 
most important domestic activity, and we have also engaged in a wide 
variety of international activities which many of you have participated 
in and have enjoyed. We facilitate interaction and dialogue between 
leaders of other nations and the United States. We have arranged more 
than 380 special events at the Capitol for distinguished international 
delegations from 85 countries and the European parliaments. We have 
programmed short-term visits of Members of those parliaments and long-
term visits here of parliamentary staff. We have hosted 45 foreign 
policy seminars in nine countries involving more than 1,000 former and 
current Members of the U.S. Congress and foreign parliamentarians, and 
we have conducted 17 study tours abroad for Members of Congress and 
former Members of Congress.
  We also serve, as many of you know, as the secretariat for the 
Congressional Study Group on Germany, which is the largest and most 
active exchange program between the United States Congress and the 
parliament of another country. This was founded in 1987 in the House of 
Representatives and the following year in the Senate. It involves a 
bipartisan group of more than 135 Members of the House and Senate. It 
provides opportunities for Members of Congress to meet with their 
counterparts in the German Bundestag and to enhance understanding and 
greater cooperation between the two bodies.
  Ongoing study group activities include conducting a distinguished 
visitors' program at the United States Capitol for guests from Germany; 
sponsoring annual seminars involving Members of the Congress and the 
German Bundestag; providing information about participation in the 
Youth Exchange Program that we cosponsor with the Bundestag and the 
Congress; and arranging for Members of the Bundestag to visit 
congressional districts in our own country with Members of the current 
Congress.
  This is a program which is active and growing. The Congressional 
Study Group on Germany is funded primarily by the German Marshall Fund 
of the United States, and we have now gotten support, financial support 
from six corporations that serve as a Business Advisory Committee as 
well.
  I would like to invite now and yield to the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Slattery) to report on the most recent meeting in Kreuth, Germany, 
which was held on March 30 to April 2 for the Study Group.
  Mr. SLATTERY. Mr. President, thank you very much. Let me just say 
that our friend from New York and our friend from Florida, Lou Frey, 
deserve a lot of recognition and appreciation from all of us for the 
work they have done with the Former Members Organization. Lou Frey, you 
have been relentless, relentless in this Annual Statesmanship Award 
Dinner in making that a success, and I think we ought to give him a 
round of applause, because you all do not know what he does to make 
that a success. And Matt McHugh, you are doing a super job as President 
too. We really appreciate that.
  It is great to see you all. I am particularly glad to see Bob Michel 
here, who I think was one of the great Members of Congress in the 12 
years that I had an opportunity to serve here. Bob, it is great to see 
you. You are looking wonderful. Former Speaker Wright I know has had a 
tough last few weeks with surgery, and Speaker Wright, you are an 
inspiration to me, you always have been and to many of us here, and I 
would just associate myself with the remarks of Dave Bonior earlier. It 
is great to see you, and we look forward to your involvement here in a 
few minutes.
  From March 28 to April 2 of this year, the Congressional Study Group 
on Germany sponsored a delegation of five current and two former 
Members of Congress to travel to Germany to have meetings with German 
State and Federal officials and Members of the German Bundestag. The 
current Members of Congress in the delegation were Bill McCollum from 
Florida, who is this year's chairman of the Congressional Study Group 
on Germany in the House, and Owen Pickett of Virginia, who was last 
year's chairman and the 1998 chairman of the Study Group. Gil Gutknecht 
of Minnesota and Carlos Romero-Barcelo of Puerto Rico and Louise 
Slaughter of New York were the current Members participating in this 
year's event, and Scott Klug, a former Member from Wisconsin and myself 
represented the former Members.
  The first part of the trip took the delegation to Berlin for three 
days where we had meetings with State and Federal officials, and in 
addition to that, we had dinner one evening with U.S. Ambassador John 
Kornblum and the President of the State Parliament of Brandenburg at 
Cecilienhof Manor, which was the site of the 1945 Potsdam Conference 
concluding World War II that was attended by Stalin and Truman and 
Churchill and later Attlee, and it was a very memorable evening, that 
evening out at the Cecilienhof Manor.
  As you may know, the United States is currently involved in a debate 
with the government of Berlin as to the placement of our new U.S. 
embassy. The plans are to reconstruct the U.S. embassy on the site of 
the embassy where it was located prior to World War II on Pariser Platz 
next to the Brandenburg Gate. Unfortunately, however, because of 
security concerns now, some of the streets may have to be moved to 
accommodate the construction of the U.S. embassy, and as you might 
imagine, this is not something that the government of Berlin enjoys 
dealing with, the relocation of streets to accommodate the U.S. 
embassy. But hopefully, if both sides continue to visit on this, a 
compromise can be reached.
  We also spent some time with the worldwide director of public policy 
for DaimlerChrysler, and it was particularly interesting to hear from 
them firsthand the kind of problems they are encountering in trying to 
merge this huge German corporation with a huge American corporation, 
and it was even more interesting, the site of this meeting, because we 
were meeting at the DaimlerChrysler new building in Potsdamer Platz.

[[Page 9444]]

  As recently as 10 years ago, of course, this area was an area that 
was divided with the wall and armed guards on both sides, and it was 
remarkable just to be there and see the kind of construction that is 
going on in the heart of Berlin. It has got to be one of the greatest, 
if not the largest construction sites in the world, and there are 
reportedly some 3,000 cranes at work in downtown Berlin rebuilding the 
city in preparation for the return of the German government to Berlin 
this summer.
  So it is really a remarkable time in Berlin. If you have the 
opportunity to travel there on any occasion, I would urge you to do it. 
It is truly a remarkable city.
  Later on in the trip we went down to a small village south of Munich 
in the foothills of the Alps called Kreuth, and there we spent several 
days, actually four days with members of the German Bundestag, former 
members of the German Bundestag, American business leaders, German 
business leaders and talked about ongoing problems in the European 
Union, problems with the Euro, problems with the European Union, the 
role that Europe and Germany in particular will be playing in the world 
community as we go forward, and at the time we were there the problems 
in Kosovo were just starting. We had just deployed, or just commenced 
the bombing activity and our troops had been captured, and it was 
particularly interesting for me to observe the united front of all of 
the German political parties in their support of NATO and NATO's 
actions against Slobodan Milosevic. So that was particularly 
encouraging to me.
  I believe very strongly that this activity with the German Bundestag 
and this exchange program, the Congressional Study Group, is a very 
important effort to keep communication alive between the United States, 
Members of this body, Members of the other body here, and the Members 
of the German Bundestag through this rather historic time that we are 
going through. I would encourage other Members, more Members, more 
current Members to become more actively involved in the German 
Congressional Study Group.
  So Mr. President, I hope that is an adequate report, and again, I 
appreciate your leadership. Nice to see you all.
  Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much, Jim. We hope that this is of 
interest to you because we are involved in a wide variety of these 
international-related programs and we think that is something that at 
one time or another you can participate in productively.
  We would like to say a few words about a number of these, and I 
understand that we are flexible in terms of timing. So the most 
important thing we are doing this morning is honoring Speaker Jim 
Wright and we want to leave adequate time for that, but we will cover a 
few of these additional items since we have the time available.
  One of the things that we do is act as a secretariat for the 
Congressional Study Group on Japan, which, similar to the Study Group 
on Germany, brings together Members of the U.S. Congress and the 
Japanese Diet and enables former Members of Congress to participate as 
well in these discussions of common interest. We find that to be very 
productive and helpful, especially at times when there is a little 
tension between the two countries on issues like trade.
  We are in the process of trying to expand our activities as well by 
creating exchange programs with China and with Mexico. These are 
obviously two countries of great interest to the United States and the 
Congress in particular, and given our experience with the Study Group 
on Germany and the Study Group on Japan, we think that we are well 
positioned to serve as a secretariat for these programs as well.
  In the aftermath of the political changes in Europe, the Association 
began a series of programs in 1989 to assist the emerging democracies 
in Central and Eastern Europe. With funding from the USIA, the 
Association sent bipartisan teams of former Members, accompanied by 
either a congressional or a country expert to the Czech Republic, to 
Slovakia, Hungary and Poland for up to two weeks. They conducted 
workshops and provided instruction in legislative issues for the new 
Members of parliament in these emerging democracies. We also worked 
with their staffs and other people involved in the legislative process. 
Public appearances were also made by Members of our delegations in 
these emerging democracies also.
  The Association arranged briefings with Members of Congress and their 
staffs, meetings with other U.S. Government officials, and personnel at 
the Congressional Support Service organizations. Visits to 
congressional districts to give them the opportunity to observe the 
operation of district offices in our home towns.
  Also with the funding of USIA the Association sent a technical 
adviser to the Hungarian Parliament in 1991 to 1993. With financial 
support from the Pew Charitable Trust in 1994, the Association assigned 
technical advisors to the Slovak and Ukrainian Parliaments. The initial 
support was supplemented by grants from the Rule of Law Program, the 
Mott Foundation, the Eurasia Foundation, the U.S. Agency for 
International Development, and we had a Congressional Fellow in 
Slovakia until 1996.
  Our program in the Ukraine has been quite successful, and since 1995 
we have managed an intern effort there, which has provided assistance 
to the legislators in the Ukraine Parliament, something which they 
would not otherwise have had without our support.
  I would like to yield briefly to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hertel) to report on the program in Ukraine.
  Mr. HERTEL. I thank the gentleman from New York, and I will be brief 
in the interest of time. I do want to congratulate so many former 
Members of Congress for staying so very active in public affairs and 
taking of their time in donating it. It gives me great pleasure to 
report on the Association's very successful assistance program to the 
Ukrainian Parliament in the last 5 years. Our commitment to the Ukraine 
is in full recognition that this country, one of the largest in Europe 
with 55 million people, plays a critical role in the future stability 
and growth of democracy in East Europe. The recent NATO summit in 
Washington underscored the important role the Ukraine can play in the 
evolving Euro-Atlantic community.
  Our program with the Ukrainian Parliament has evolved over time from 
its initial work as a source of technical advice to the development of 
a young leaders program. The staff intern program was established in 
the fall of 1995, following discussions with parliamentary leaders who 
indicated that increased staff support would be the most valuable 
assistance that could be provided. The initial group of 35 young 
Ukrainians who served as staff interns were in the 22 to 36-year age 
group and were drawn primarily from graduate schools in law, 
government, and economics. In subsequent years the age range has been 
slightly younger, from 22 to 28. In 1998 and 1999, with funding from 
the Eurasia Foundation, our program supported 60 interns. An additional 
7 interns have been included in the program as a result of private 
sector support.
  The staff interns have been placed primarily in committees where they 
serve as permanent staff and engage in mainline staff duties, including 
drafting legislation, analyzing and researching reports on potential 
legislation, reporting on committee deliberations, and translating 
vital Western documents. They also participate in a regular evening 
educational program.
  The intern graduates, who now number approximately 200, represent a 
new generation of young political leaders. We have helped nurture the 
creation of an organization knitting together a group as a de facto 
Association of Young Ukrainian Political Leaders, many of whom have 
returned to the Parliament as permanent staff. Others are in 
increasingly responsible positions in the Ukrainian government, and the 
emerging private business sector, with nongovernmental organizations, 
think tanks, and the academic community.
  We have now reached the point where we are seeking to increase the 
degree

[[Page 9445]]

of Ukrainian management of the program to ensure its long-term 
viability while maintaining the high standards of the nonpartisan 
selection process. Recent negotiations in Kiev have resulted in the 
formulation of a transition plan over the next 18 months to independent 
Ukrainian supervision by two outstanding organizations, one academic 
and the other the Association of Ukrainian Deputies. The latter is a 
counterpart to our Association, was established with our assistance, 
and includes 320 former deputies of the Ukrainian Parliament. The 
Association is chaired by the former vice-chair of the Parliament who, 
in a meeting last year with the chairman of our House Committee on 
International Relations, Ben Gilman, said that the intern program ``is 
now training clerks for future competent politicians.'' He is committed 
to ensuring that the intern program maintains its high standards and 
continues to train an emerging new generation of Western-oriented young 
democratic leaders. I am visiting there during the next two weeks to 
meet with those interns and leaders of the program and to offer your 
congratulations for all of the successes that they have had under your 
leadership. Thank you.
  Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much, Dennis.
  One of the most significant study missions that we have done in 
recent years has been to Cuba. In December of 1996, the Association 
sent a delegation of current and former Members of Congress to Cuba on 
this study mission to assess the situation there and to analyze the 
effectiveness of U.S. policies toward Cuba. Upon its return, the 
delegation wrote a report of its findings which was widely disseminated 
through print and visual media, and was made available to Members of 
the House and the Senate, as well as to officials in the executive 
branch. There was also a follow-up to this initial study mission which 
was conducted in January of this year. Again, the delegation was 
bipartisan; it made a report upon its return, and that report has 
gotten widespread dissemination, and hopefully some attention as well. 
We expect that there will be two additional bipartisan teams of former 
Members of Congress who will travel to Cuba this fall and will hold 
workshops in regional centers on topics of particular concern to the 
leaders in those areas. This program with Cuba is funded by the Ford 
Foundation.
  At this point I would like to yield to the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Wheat) to report on this year's study mission, and he was a 
participant in that.
  Mr. WHEAT. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Recently, as the chairman noted, I had the privilege of participating 
in our delegation to Cuba, sponsored by the Former Members Association, 
and the delegation included some very distinguished former Members, 
Senator DeConcini, Senator Pressler, Senator Kasten, and, of course, we 
were led by our former chairman, Lou Frey.
  During my time in the House, I participated in numerous of these 
delegations all over the world, led by many capable leaders, including 
my former Rules Committee chairman, Claude Pepper. Unfortunately, I had 
to leave Congress to find out a Republican can lead a delegation as 
well as a Democrat. I am referring to the outstanding chairmanship of 
Chairman Lou Frey, whose enthusiasm, his intelligence, his insight, his 
probing commentary, enriched the quality of our delegation's experience 
and led to some very important rapport with bipartisan conclusions 
about steps we might take to improve our relationship with the Cuban 
people.
  Like many aspects of our relationship with Cuba, there were 
difficulties with some of the things we went down to talk about. But, 
since our trip, some of you may have noticed a small change in our 
relationship, specifically, a baseball game, or rather games.
  The Baltimore Orioles twice played the Cuban National Team, both in 
Cuba and in Baltimore. The results of these games were, well, not much. 
The Cubans won one, and we won one.
  More importantly, international order was not threatened, and our 
domestic policy was not derailed. Honestly, not even that many people 
paid attention. It was not the World Series. Sure, 40,000 people came 
to the game in Camden Yards, but many of them left after the rain delay 
in the first inning.
  Perhaps future historians will say that this game was of tremendous 
national importance and improved the relationship between the United 
States and Cuba, but, for now, it was just a baseball game, and like 
many other aspects of our relationship with Cuba, the negotiations 
leading up to it were arduous and fraught with misunderstanding and 
misperception.
  Let me tell you just one quick thing about it. One of our main goals 
in our trip to Cuba was to examine the misperceptions between the two 
countries. To do that we met with members of the Cuban government, 
political dissidents, representatives of the very limited private 
sector, human rights groups and members of the Catholic Church, and we 
took a little time out for recreation.
  We went to a Cuban baseball game. We found that their love of the 
game was very similar to ours, but everything else was different. The 
stadium was old and in disrepair. The 10 or 12 cars in the parking lot 
were of a vintage that is no longer seen in the United States. They 
were from the 1950s. The top players make $8 to $10 a month, a change 
some of us think might be good here, and we paid the admission price of 
4 cents to get in the stadium.
  You may remember that the negotiations about this game were hung up 
for a long time on what to do with the proceeds. Now, 40,000 people in 
Cuba at 4 cents each totals $1,600. Well, in Cuba $1,600 may be a lot 
of money, but you can understand that the Cuban government officials 
drew a little concern about whether the United States was making a real 
offer or commitment or whether this was just a public relations ploy.
  If this game did not occur as a result, so what? It was only a 
baseball game. But suppose similar attitudes affected other areas of 
our relations with Cuba? Suppose relatives were kept apart because 
there were no flights between the two countries? Suppose lifesaving 
medical techniques and medicines were not allowed to be transported to 
and from Cuba? Suppose the policy of noncooperation kept illegal drugs 
flowing into the United States?
  When our delegation returned from Cuba, we met with officials at the 
State Department to discuss the mixed signals that we were sending to 
Cuba. We do not know whether our conversations made a difference or 
not, but we do know the two games were played.
  Let us hope similar results occur for the 12 substantive policy 
recommendations that we proposed. I will not bore you with them this 
morning, but let me just sum them up by saying they are designed to 
encourage greater communication and exchange between the Cuban people 
and the American people.
  If each and every one of our recommendations made on a bipartisan 
basis were implemented, international order would not be threatened, 
our domestic policy will not be derailed, the Cubans might win a 
little, the United States might win a little and, hopefully, future 
baseball games could occur in the context of a real world series.
  Thank you.

 Report by the Delegation of the U.S. Association of Former Members of 
              Congress: Visit to Cuba, January 10-16, 1999

  Members of Delegation: Hon. Louis Frey, Jr., Chairman; Hon. Dennis 
 DeConcini; Hon. Robert W. Kasten, Jr.; Hon. Larry Pressler; Hon. Alan 
            Wheat; Mr. Walter Raymond, Jr.; Mr. Oscar Juarez


                                SUMMARY

       The U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress sent a 
     seven-member, bipartisan delegation to Cuba from 10 to 16 
     January 1999 to see first hand current political, economic 
     and social conditions in Cuba and to engage in a series of 
     frank discussions concerning U.S.-Cuban relations. The 
     delegation was composed of former Representative Louis Frey, 
     Jr., Chairman; former Senator Dennis DeConcini; former 
     Senator Robert Kasten, Jr.; former Senator Larry Pressler; 
     and former Representative Alan Wheat. They were accompanied 
     by Walter Raymond, Jr., Senior Advisor of the Association and 
     Oscar

[[Page 9446]]

     Juarez. The trip was funded by a grant to the Association 
     from the Ford Foundation.
       The delegation pursued its objectives through formal 
     meetings with Ministers, bureaucrats, political dissidents, 
     independent journalists, foreign diplomats, Western 
     businessmen and informal meetings with a cross-section of 
     individual Cubans. Three members of the delegation had 
     participated in a similar fact-finding mission to Cuba in 
     December 1996 and were able to observe changes in conditions 
     in Cuba over the past two years.
       The delegation's approach was based on the realities of the 
     current relationship of Cuba to national security objectives 
     as well as the sensitivities of the Cuba issue in political 
     circles in the United States. In addition, the concomitant 
     interests of the Cuban people to meet basic human needs and 
     to work for the development of an open society, as well as 
     their desire to be respected according to their sense of Cuba 
     and their national identity, were taken into consideration by 
     the delegation in making their recommendations.
     Policy Background
       U.S. policy to Cuba is based on a series of long-standing 
     Congressional and Executive Actions. The essential ingredient 
     is the long-standing embargo, designed to put maximum 
     pressure on Castro. This policy, which began in 1960, was in 
     direct response to the establishment of Communism in Cuba and 
     the development of a close security relationship with the 
     Soviet Union. The Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Cuban 
     Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 
     sought to further strengthen Cuba's isolation and to take 
     advantage of that to force major political change. These 
     policies over almost 40 years showed to the world the U.S. 
     resolve to protect its borders and the Western Hemisphere as 
     well as opposition to Castro and his communist dictatorship.
       Times have changed. The end of the Soviet subsidy in 1992, 
     which totaled between $5 to 8 billion per year, and the 
     collapse of the Soviet Union have changed the strategic 
     equation. Moscow no longer is subsidizing Cuba, the island 
     does not represent a base of military operations against the 
     Untied States and Cuba is not a national security threat to 
     the United States. Increasingly, Cuba is out of step with the 
     entire Western Hemisphere which has been engulfed by a 
     democratic wave. On the international level, Cuba is 
     increasingly irrelevant: the communist revolution has failed 
     and Castro is an anachronism. On the domestic level in the 
     United States, Cuba continues to be an important issue. The 
     only national security threat would be a chaotic transition 
     of power in Cuba that could lead to a mass exodus of Cuban 
     citizens to the United States mainland.
     Cuba Today
       A review of Cuba begins with the understanding that the 
     Castro regime remains very much a police state and suppresses 
     any independent political expression. The country is 
     controlled by Castro through the military, the Ministry of 
     Interior and the police. There is little regard for human 
     rights, no freedom of the press and few political dissidents 
     because of the pressures applied by Castro. Despite U.S. 
     policies over the past years, pending unforeseen 
     circumstances, Castro will remain in control until his death.
       Economic belt-tightening is the order of the day. The 
     delegation was briefed on economic restructuring affecting 
     various state-run industries designed to increase the 
     efficiency of the state economy. At the same time, heavy 
     taxes and other pressures have resulted in a decrease in the 
     number of small self-employed enterprises. The management of 
     a number of state enterprises has been taken over by former 
     military officers. These officers are positioned to be part 
     of a post-Castro elite. The ruling class in Cuba, while not 
     guilty of conspicuous consumption, live comfortably and have 
     benefited within the parameters of the controlled economy. 
     The overall impact of developments in the past two years 
     suggests that prospects for the economy are slightly better--
     but this is a result of a significant growth of tourism and 
     the close to $1 billion of remittances sent by Cuban-
     Americans living in the United States to their families and 
     friends in Cuba. Remittances have been the biggest boost to 
     the economy at this time.
       The Pope's visit made some impact and appears to have given 
     the Catholic Church more operating space. Although the 
     percentage of Catholics in Cuba is significantly less than 
     Poland, the Pope's visit had an invigorating effect. Church 
     attendance, while still comparatively moderate, has risen and 
     the Church has been able to increase its support activities 
     including the distribution of humanitarian assistance. Castro 
     has been forced de facto to accept humanitarian assistance in 
     a manner which reaches the Cuban people. On the basis of 
     informal conversations, it appears that another consequence 
     of the visit is that it has given Cuban citizens more of a 
     sense of connection with the ``outside world'' and a greater 
     willingness to interact. In other words, a potential key 
     impact of the Pope's visit is that it has started a process 
     of opening things up.
       The United States is receiving only limited cooperation 
     from its allies, including those in Europe, on key issues 
     such as workers' rights. Foreign enterprises continue to pay 
     the Cuban government for work performed, and the Cubans in 
     turn pay the workers in pesos at an artificially low exchange 
     rate. The Europeans continue to press for greater respect for 
     human rights to be observed but with little demonstrable 
     success.
       The Cuban people retain a great deal of pride in their 
     homeland--even those who are not happy with Castro. There is 
     a concern about the lack of respect for Cuba by the United 
     States which goes back to the 19th Century. The Cubans had 
     been fighting for many years against the Spanish, yet the 
     Americans entered the war later and called it the Spanish-
     American War. Little acknowledgment was given to the many 
     Cubans who died for their country's freedom.
       Much of the U.S. policy toward Cuba recently has been 
     dictated by domestic politics. For instance, compare the 
     difference in the current U.S. approach to three communist 
     countries, China, Vietnam and Cuba. China has been given most 
     favored nation trade status. Vietnam has been recognized 
     officially, trade has been encouraged and a trade agreement 
     is in progress. However, with Cuba there is an embargo that 
     is close to 40 years old and continues despite the changed 
     geopolitical circumstances resulting from the demise of the 
     Soviet Union.
     Policy Considerations
       In order to understand the delegation's recommendations, it 
     is necessary to start with a clear definition of policy 
     objectives. The first question from the United States' 
     standpoint should be what is in the best national security 
     interests of the United States. Assuming that the assessment 
     is correct that whatever the United States does will not 
     drive Castro from office, the concentration should be on what 
     can be done to help the Cuban people in the short term by 
     meeting certain basic human needs and by helping enfranchise 
     economically an ever larger group of independent Cubans. In 
     the longer term, these steps will contribute to laying a 
     framework for a peaceful transition toward an open society 
     compatible with the emerging democratic world throughout the 
     Western Hemisphere.
       The United States can not let Castro dictate its actions on 
     non-actions; U.S. policy must be determined on its own 
     merits. Some actions may be taken unilaterally that could 
     benefit the United States or actions could be designed to 
     benefit the Cuban people without expecting any concessions 
     from the Castro government. However, there may be some 
     proposed actions, such as those set forth in the Helms-Burton 
     Act, which should be taken only if the Castro government acts 
     or reciprocates.
       U.S. leaders must endeavor to do away with a schizophrenic 
     approach to Cuba. U.S. policy has been stated expressly as 
     designed to help Cuban political development by supporting 
     the growth of an independent sector and a middle class. The 
     delegation supports this. At the same time, U.S. policies 
     also should strive to meet certain basic needs of the Cuban 
     people. For instance, if it makes sense to send medical 
     supplies or food to Cuba, a maze of rules and regulations 
     should not be attached which often result in supplies not 
     ever reaching Cuba. Castro is given a public relations 
     victory and, more importantly, vital assistance does not 
     reach the Cuban people. The same can be said in many other 
     areas, including travel where the delegation believes U.S.-
     imposed bureaucratic limitations hamper the maximization of 
     people-to-people contact programs. Some of these specific 
     areas will be discussed in the body of this report. If policy 
     were consistent with the rhetoric and the United States we 
     intended to isolate Castro totally, then all contact should 
     be ended, including the massive number of remittances sent 
     from the Cuban-American community. This does not make sense--
     and the delegation does not favor such a drastic step--but it 
     does illustrate the strange position that exists.
       The common sense rule should be applied regarding the use 
     of rhetoric. For instance what is important to the United 
     States? Is it more important that a certain act be taken to 
     accomplish a specific result, or is it more important that 
     rhetoric be used to talk about the certain act? In some cases 
     both may be done; in other cases it will be counterproductive 
     to conduct foreign policy encased in domestic-focused 
     rhetoric. As an example, political dissidents, independent 
     journalists, representatives of religious organizations and 
     NGOs all express concern about the way in which Washington 
     rhetoric links NGOs and the construction of civil society in 
     Cuba with the removal of Castro, as stated in 1992 and 1996 
     legislation. The rhetoric lays dissidents and independents 
     open to the charge of being ``tools of subversion against the 
     Castro regime.''
     Conclusion
       In conclusion, it is time to deal with Cuba as it is today 
     not in terms of the Cold War which dominated post-war 
     politics for 40 years. Does this mean the embargo should be 
     lifted? If the sole purpose of the embargo is to drive Castro 
     out, it has not worked and it is not going to work. And is 
     has not impacted on Castro's leadership elite. If other 
     legitimate ends are being accomplished, then it should be 
     left in place. Should the Helms-Burton Act be changed? While 
     it continues to put pressure on the Cuban Government to 
     resolve issues of the confiscation of property,

[[Page 9447]]

     Titles I and II of the Helms-Burton Act should be liberally 
     interpreted as this provides help directly to the Cuban 
     people. On this point there are differences within the 
     delegation. The delegation does agree that Titles I and II of 
     the Helms-Burton Act should be more liberally interpreted as 
     this provides help directly to the Cuban people. Further 
     consideration should be given to modifications of Title IV if 
     EU nations provide greater recognition to U.S. property 
     claims. Policy modifications are recommended with the full 
     realization that Cuba continues to be a communist 
     dictatorship. Policy adjustments which the delegation are 
     proposing are in the interests of the United States and the 
     Cuban people, not Castro.
       The United States should exhibit a greater sense of 
     confidence that increased contacts between the United States 
     and Cuba will work to the advantage of the development of a 
     more open society rather than to help Castro. People-to-
     people contacts, increased travel, an unlimited supply of 
     food and medicines are not viewed by the Cuban people as an 
     aid to Castro, but rather as support to the Cuban people.
     Recommendations
       1. Remaining impediments to exchange programs should be 
     removed. People-to-people contacts should be greatly 
     expanded, including on a two-way basis. The issuance of 
     general licenses should be expanded to a wide range of fields 
     including educational, cultural, humanitarian, religious and 
     athletic exchange. Cuban-American residents in the United 
     States should be included under a general licensing provision 
     with no limit to the number of visits to Cuba per year. The 
     two-way aspect of this program is important, permitting 
     Cubans (including Cuban officials) to have an increased 
     exposure to the United States so they have a shared 
     educational and cultural experience to help dispel 
     stereotypes. Such exchanges are not a threat to US national 
     security. If the Cuban Government is reluctant to sanction 
     such exchanges to the United States, it could reflect concern 
     over defections resulting from dissatisfaction with 
     conditions in Cuba.
       2. Direct, regularly scheduled flights between the United 
     States and Cuba should be authorized and established. This is 
     the best way to maximize person-to-person contacts and to 
     facilitate humanitarian assistance. The delegation recognizes 
     that such a move may necessitate a Civil Air agreement. the 
     gains outweigh concerns about enhanced recognition that this 
     may give Castro. An alternative could be the approval of 
     foreign airlines to make stops in the United States enroute 
     to Cuba, a step that could be pursued through IATA.
       3. Pressures should be sustained on Cuba to release 
     political prisoners and to ameliorate prison conditions. The 
     delegation recommends continued contacts with the 
     International Committee of the Red Cross and other Human 
     Rights Groups in Latin America and Europe to press them to 
     seek prison visits and to pressure the Castro regime to 
     recognize basic human rights standards for prisoners of 
     conscience. There has been no perceptible change in human 
     rights conditions since the Pope's visit, despite an initial 
     release of some prisoners.
       4. All restrictions on the sales and/or free distribution 
     of medicines and medical supplies should be removed. A 
     general license should be given for donations and sales to 
     non-governmental organizations and humanitarian institutions, 
     such as hospitals. Considerations should be given to 
     identifying a U.S. purchasing agent who could serve as an 
     expediter and independent bridge between the U.S. 
     pharmaceutical firms and Cuban ``customers'' to facilitate 
     sales and to monitor delivery.
       5. Unrestricted sales of food and agricultural inputs 
     should be authorized. This policy, if unencumbered by 
     regulations that undercut the effectiveness of this 
     initiative, will help the Cuban people. Even operating within 
     the parameters of the Presidential Statement, there are steps 
     that can be taken to increase agricultural production and the 
     capabilities of the farmers. The delegation has commented on 
     this in some detail in the report and believes that creative 
     ways can be found to accomplish the objectives.
       6. Commercial shipping carrier companies (such as DHL, UPS 
     or other shippers) should be authorized regular delivery 
     stops in Cuba. Accompanying arrangements would need to be 
     made in Cuba for safe delivery to meet carrier standards, 
     including a contractual arrangement with a Havana-based 
     representative organization. Regular sea transportation also 
     should be authorized. Expanded air and sea shipping will 
     facilitate the delivery of gifts of food, agricultural 
     supplies, medicines and medical equipment. These new 
     transportation links also would facilitate humanitarian 
     efforts by private Americans to ship larger ``care packages'' 
     directly to Cuban citizens and thus supplement support from 
     remittances.
       7. The delegation supports a policy to expand remittances 
     in amounts allowed and to permit all U.S. residents, not just 
     those with families in Cuba, to send remittances to 
     individual Cuban families. Greater utilization of the Western 
     Union office in Havana should be considered as a means to 
     expand the number and diversity of remittances.
       8. The delegation believes a regional effort should be 
     studied to reduce the flow of pollutants into the Gulf of 
     Mexico with its concomitant impact on sea wildlife 
     environmental damage to the shores of various countries 
     affected by raw sewage outflows from Cuba.
       9. An independent group should review Radio Marti 
     broadcasting to insure that the news package is balanced, 
     meets all required professional standards and covers major 
     international stories. This is the second Association trip to 
     Cuba in which the delegates found no independent Cuban 
     citizens who had seen TV Marti. It is recommended that funds 
     supporting TV Marti be redirected to an enrichment of Radio 
     Marti or dedicated to an expansion of telecommunications 
     linkages. (See Recommendation 10)
       10. Technical breakthroughs in the telecommunications 
     industry should be explored to increase information links to 
     Cuba. Internet, e-mail, cell phones and other state-of-the-
     art communications slowly are bringing information and ideas 
     to the country. It is recommended that the U.S. Government 
     and Congress consider authorizing U.S. telecommunications 
     companies to explore possibilities for establishing more open 
     and diverse communications between the United States and 
     Cuba.
       11. Consideration should be given to opening property 
     settlement discussions and establishing a process with a 
     payment schedule, even if actual funding is deferred to a 
     future date. The Cubans acknowledged that this is an 
     outstanding issue in the bilateral relationship and they 
     claimed that they were prepared to discuss settlement. There 
     may be a role for a third party arbitrator to facilitate this 
     negotiation.
       12. Policy steps which are just pinpricks should be 
     avoided, as they accomplish little and impact negatively on a 
     policy to open Cuba up to change. As an example, the proposal 
     for a baseball exchange is a positive step, but the U.S. 
     announcement explicitly dictates how proceeds for games in 
     both Baltimore and Havana are to be used. Each country should 
     decide how the proceeds will be spent. The ticket price in 
     Havana is approximately four cents, so the issue is largely 
     irrelevant.


  background to policy recommendations and other observations by the 
                               delegation

     Political Conditions
       Cuba remains very much a police state under the tight 
     domination of a single ruler. The post-Castro era could 
     involve a conflict between nomenklatura elements (younger, 
     middle-to-senior level officials), who have vested interests 
     in the system and are prepared to consider steps toward 
     economic reform, and a law-and-order wing, largely housed in 
     the military and the Ministry of Interior. Equally possible, 
     however, could be the lack of an effective leadership to fill 
     the space, largely as a result of Castro's failure to allow 
     reasonable political development in the country as a 
     preparatory step for a peaceful and constructive transition. 
     An alternative course, however, might occur if time and 
     circumstances permit the growth of an increasingly 
     independent economic infrastructure in which more citizens 
     become economically enfranchised and a broader segment of 
     society has a vested interest in a stable transition.
       The lack of a political opening was palpable. Castro 
     remains opposed to any alternative system or actions 
     independent of the system. Internal crackdowns against crime 
     are designed to improve the command economy, not to change 
     it. In meetings with a number of intellectuals, independent 
     journalists and political activists, several interesting 
     points were raised. However, among these representatives of 
     the political opposition there were some differences of 
     opinion. The political dissidents underscored in very 
     personal terms that there was a continued crackdown. They 
     said the probability was very real that, although they had 
     spend time in jail in the past, this might happen again in 
     the upcoming year. They also described the regime's procedure 
     of arresting people and detaining them for up to 30 days 
     without trial and then releasing them. They added that Cuban 
     authorities are aware that trials may draw major Western 
     press and that they seek to make their message known by 
     selective detention. They acknowledged the lack of 
     coordination among the dissidents. They may represent a moral 
     force but, at this point, they do not occupy significant 
     political space.
       The political independents did not see much, if any, 
     improvement in living or working conditions as a result of 
     the Pope's visit, although independent journalists thought 
     there was a bit more flexibility vis-a-vis journalists. All 
     agreed that the economy is in bad shape. The dissidents 
     described the existence of two embargoes--the one imposed by 
     the U.S. Government and the other imposed by the Cuban 
     Government against its own people. They were underwhelmed by 
     support from the EU and noted that some workers had tried 
     unsuccessfully to block Western investments unless the 
     Europeans pressed for adherence to the Arcos principles. At 
     the same time, they said that there were more than 300 
     foreign businesses in Cuba, that this increases foreign 
     influence and in the long run could be a plus.
       The delegation was rebuffed in its efforts to visit four 
     leading dissidents, who were seized without charges in 1997 
     and still have not been brought to trial. The dissidents in 
     question were Marta Beatrix Roque, Rene

[[Page 9448]]

     Gomez Manzano, Felix Bonne and Vladimiro Roca. The delegation 
     had a particular interest in meeting with them as the earlier 
     Association delegation had met the four dissidents in Havana 
     in 1996. The delegation also pressed the Cuban authorities to 
     allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to make 
     prison visits. Although some other groups have, on occasion 
     visited Cuban prisons, the ICRC has not been allowed into 
     Cuba for ten years. ICRC visits--with their subsequent 
     confidential report to the host government--would be a 
     positive step.
       It is hard to evaluate the degree to which the Pope's visit 
     has emboldened the local population to exercise more 
     independence, but the delegation sensed that the post-Pope 
     visit atmosphere was somewhat more positive. There is active 
     interest in more contacts and communications. Some looked to 
     President Clinton's declarations on January 5 as a 
     potentially important step to expand contacts and access. 
     Others thought increased possibilities exist for 
     telecommunications breakthroughs, including internet, which 
     will permit more extensive communications with persons 
     outside of Cuba. Representatives of NGOs also believe that 
     they have developed more operating space, a potentially 
     encouraging sign for the future.
     Economics--Cuban Style
       The delegation was given a comprehensive review of the 
     Cuban Economy by Economics Minister Jose Rodriguez. Rodriguez 
     came from the academic world and his presentation did not 
     include a self-defeating propagandistic spin. The 1996 
     Association delegation met with Rodriguez and his earlier 
     analysis has substantively held up quite well. He underscored 
     that growth recorded in 1996 and 1997 had flattened out in 
     1998 to 1.2 percent. The Government is engaged in a major 
     restructuring of the industrial sector, seeking to increase 
     productivity by cutting subsidies to unprofitable state-owned 
     enterprises. This causes unemployment and other adjustment 
     problems. A number of state-owned companies are being taken 
     over and operated by former military officers.
       Rodriguez claimed that 81 percent of the state enterprises 
     now are profitable, as opposed to 20 percent in 1993.
       An exception to the pattern has been the critical sugar 
     industry, where production lags because of poor production 
     techniques and devastating weather. A reorganization of the 
     production capacity is underway and some less productive 
     mills will be closed. This will cause labor dislocation and 
     the need for labor retraining to demonstrate how to increase 
     unit yield. This reorganization also includes a shift from a 
     vertical to a horizontal system. Instead of all instructions 
     and all infrastructural support coming from one central 
     point, the reorganization gives self-supporting industrial 
     elements, such as shipping and packing units, greater ability 
     to make decisions.
       The Minister indicated that incentives programs were being 
     installed in agriculture and other areas. He suggested there 
     was a role for farmers with an entrepreneurial flair but that 
     such people--the emerging independent cooperative farmers--
     need to understand about incentives and to be motivated to 
     work for them. He said that by appreciating their role, these 
     independent farmers can strive to earn foreign currency and 
     sales. The farmers need new modern equipment to replace the 
     old, obsolete and often broken Soviet agricultural equipment. 
     The question was raised about the free market. Rodriguez 
     referred to incentives within the socialist system where 
     quotas were provided to the enterprise and the worker and 
     once they achieved that quota, the additional production 
     could be taken to the market for sale. Returns would be 
     shared by the workers and the enterprise which would keep a 
     portion of the funds received to enhance further production 
     rather than turn revenue over to the State. However, Castro 
     tends to undercut some of the potentially positive aspects of 
     this trend by trying to eliminate or minimize the ``middle 
     men'' who help the independent farmers send their product to 
     the markets.
       Tourism is the largest income producer for Cuba. Rodriguez 
     said that there were 1.4 million tourists in 1998, a 17 
     percent growth is expected in 1999 and a total tourist inflow 
     of two million is anticipated in 2000. He said tourism helped 
     compensate for the sharp decline in sugar exports. He made no 
     reference to the decisive impact that accelerated remittances 
     from the United States have had on the Cuban economy. The 
     delegation raised the question of the tourist industry--such 
     as foreign owned or operated hotels--paying the government 
     for the salaries of its employees. He responded that this was 
     the way the socialistic system works. He added, however, that 
     there might be some alterations to the payments system, but 
     the state would continue to monitor and control it. The 
     delegation stated that such procedures were unacceptable to 
     most businessmen and disadvantaged the employee.
       Rodriguez maintained that the private sector is growing, 
     but it has to react to stiffer competition. Paladares 
     (private restaurants) continue to be active, although some 
     have closed because of competition. Others have opened. 
     Castro continues to hinder each effort to establish even the 
     rudiments of a private sector. For example, the paladares not 
     only are limited to only 12 customers a night, but they also 
     are not allowed to sell lobster or steak, although some do. 
     The delegation expressed concern that the number of small 
     private enterprises had dropped; Rodriguez said the private 
     sector was growing. Our figures indicated that the number had 
     gone down from approximately 215,000 to about 150,000. He 
     acknowledged small private activities were heavily taxed, 
     noting that private rooms--totaling 8,000 according to 
     Rodriguez--can be rented if the owner receives a license and 
     pays a tax. Cuban officials do not see these as punitive 
     taxes, underscoring that the taxes are essential to provide 
     dollars to the state. They state that clearly the private 
     sector would not continue to rent rooms and open paladares if 
     they did not think it provides economic gain for them.
       In a subsequent discussion, a senior official of the 
     Ministry for Foreign Investment emphasized that there is a 
     new Cuban law concerning foreign investment which reportedly 
     will make it easier for foreign investors. He stated that now 
     there are about 360 joint ventures in the country. While the 
     Helms Burton Act has retarded investment, the official 
     believes that foreign investment now is increasing. He cited 
     recent foreign investments in the development of an electric 
     generation plant, financial commitments to joint ventures to 
     establish business centers--principally to be occupied by 
     foreign companies--condominiums, free trade zones and 
     industrial parks.
       In addition to the massive infusion of remittance dollars, 
     ordinary Cuban citizens are finding other ways to receive 
     dollars. People appeared to be coping, possibly a bit better 
     than two years ago. Western companies have found ways to 
     supplement the salaries which they pay to workers via the 
     state by a system of hard currency bonuses. Castro's 
     desperate need for dollars means that he is prepared to look 
     the other way and let dollars come from these various 
     sources. However, through severe taxation and the 
     construction of a shopping mall selling Western goods to 
     Cuban citizens, Castro seeks to gain access to some of the 
     dollars flowing into the island.
       The construction of a major new modern airport (with 
     Canadian funding) and a large shipping terminal to berth 
     cruise ships are two additional examples of steps that will 
     increase travel to Cuba and contact between the Cuban 
     population and visitors. These facilities also will increase 
     the amount of dollars in circulation, some of which will 
     reach the Cuban citizens. Tourism is the number one income 
     producer for the regime. At the same time, some farms and 
     industries have established a greater profit share with 
     workers receiving dollar bonuses and farmers, many of whom 
     now are defined as ``independent'' farmers, are able to sell 
     on the market an increasing share of their production. It 
     should be noted that everything is relative in Cuba and the 
     standard of living and the infrastructure lag far behind its 
     potential and/or its place in the Caribbean compared to where 
     it was 40 years ago.
       In a conversation with the Chairman of the National 
     Assembly's Foreign Relations Committee, the delegation raised 
     the question of the restoration of confiscated properties and 
     asked if there were any movement within the Cuban Government 
     to address this issue. The Chairman said that, under the law 
     nationalizing property, every country has been paid except 
     the United States. He stated that Cuba was prepared to 
     discuss settlement of the property. The problem is the 
     retroactivity of the Helms-Burton Act which gives the right 
     to Cuban citizens, who have been nationalized as Americans, 
     to claim property with the help of the U.S. Government. It 
     would cost the Cuban Government over $6 billion, an amount 
     beyond their capabilities. The delegation asked whether a 
     third party--possibly a Latin American country--might serve 
     as an arbitrator to resolve these claims.
     Cuban Comments about the Helms-Burton Act
       During discussions in Havana with non-official Cubans, the 
     delegation raised the question of U.S. policy with specific 
     reference to the Helms Burton Act. The delegation said that 
     political realities in the United States suggest that the 
     Helms-Burton Act will remain in place for the foreseeable 
     future and planning should be developed with this reality in 
     mind. It should be recorded, however that most of those 
     queried argued in favor of a basic change in the Helms-Burton 
     Act. For example, the Catholic Church, echoing the Pope, 
     urged that the embargo be terminated. Western businessmen 
     thought that the future was discernible, economic prospects 
     were encouraging and the United States should decide if it 
     were to be a player or not. The U.S. embargo, at this 
     juncture, was a strong moral statement and de facto it aided 
     foreign business access. They did not understand why the 
     United States did not want to be a player in Cuba's future 
     which could be better achieved with normal economic and 
     social relations.
       Dissident and NGO representatives took particular exception 
     to the way in which the Helms-Burton Act and the recent 
     Presidential announcements have been wrapped in a rhetorical 
     package which has the effect of labeling all efforts to build 
     ``civil society'' as a move to overthrow Castro. As one 
     Western

[[Page 9449]]

     NGO representative said, the NGOs are identified as tools of 
     subversion against Castro and this backfires on the NGOs. The 
     dissidents are, to some degree, divided. The majority believe 
     that the Helms-Burton Act gives Castro an excuse for 
     everything that goes wrong in Cuba and by lifting it, the 
     world (and the Cuban people) could see the bad management, 
     corruption and failure of the Cuban regime. Several said, 
     however, that modification of the embargo would need to be 
     made in a way that does not take the pressure off Castro.
       Policy formulations need to reflect sensitivity to the 
     Cuban mind set. Even men-on-the-street Cubans have some 
     support for Cuban nationalism, as distinct from Castro's 
     regime. Dissidents repeated a view heard in several circles 
     that they were concerned about substituting Miami for Havana. 
     They would like to participate in democratic change and 
     welcome close relations with the United States, they do not 
     want foreign dominance which played too large a part in their 
     past.
       In sum, the delegation recognizes that Cuba remains a 
     repressive society, but believes that the state system will 
     undergo major changes after Castro dies. The experiences 
     reflected in the many transitions that have taken place in 
     the past ten years in Central and East Europe, as well as the 
     states formerly composing the USSR, indicate that changes can 
     take many different directions ranging from democracy to 
     domestic instability to authoritarianism. It is in both the 
     Cuban and U.S. national interest to encourage peaceful 
     evolution to an open society. The delegation believes steps 
     should be initiated to reduce Cuba's isolation and to 
     communicate with many different elements of Cuban society. 
     Further, pain and suffering on the island should be eased 
     through humanitarian support, particularly in the areas of 
     flood and medicine. The delegation does not believe it either 
     politically possible to challenge the Helms-Burton Act, nor 
     does it believe it is warranted in light of continued 
     political oppression by Castro, but further practical policy 
     and program steps are possible during this interim phase of 
     history.
     Food and Agriculture
       The delegation favors unrestricted sales of food and 
     agricultural equipment. Food sales and gifts do not 
     strengthen Castro. They may give him a limited propaganda 
     stick, but they give the Cuban people food.
       The policy announced by the White House on January 5, 1999 
     on food sales places a very sharply focused emphasis on the 
     independent agricultural sector in Cuba. The language of the 
     announcement is unnecessarily circumscribed and the potential 
     benefit of this policy initiative will be effected by the 
     manner in which the implementing regulations are drafted. 
     Very restrictive drafting could make this initiative 
     virtually meaningless. The delegation observed food shortages 
     and is aware that supply is very tight in Cuba. It believes 
     that the sales of food and equipment to independent 
     nongovernmental entities is desirable and should be pressed 
     where practicable. It should not be restrictive. The 
     delegation does not favor sales at subsidized concessionary 
     rates--no U.S. Government underwriting should be engaged in 
     these transactions. Even if one works through the state 
     trading system, the food will still reach the Cuban people--
     and the ultimate purpose is to help the Cuban people--even if 
     some of the cash proceeds end up with the Cuban Government. 
     Realistically speaking that is where most of the remittances 
     sent by Cuban-Americans to their families ultimately end up. 
     The delegation believes that gifts of food to needy persons 
     and groups should be continued through responsible 
     humanitarian channels, such as Caritas. Such gifts do benefit 
     directly the Cuban people.
       The delegation used the January 5 policy statement as a 
     starting point for discussions on this subject with Cuban 
     officials and with representatives from the private sector, 
     foreign and domestic. A number of important points emerged in 
     these conversations.
       A large number of Cubans are defined as ``independent'' by 
     the Cuban Government and by Western businessmen and NGO 
     representatives. The key is how to define the so-called 
     independent farmers who are in cooperatives where the land is 
     owned by the state but who, after meeting a production quota 
     for the state, have the freedom to sell their own produce. 
     These farmers need enhanced fertilizers, pesticides and 
     equipment, but they have a serious cash shortfall. There is a 
     skepticism in Cuba as to whether these ``private'' farmers 
     will be able to buy many supplies and equipment. For this 
     proposal to have any positive impact, it is essential to have 
     a broad rather than a legalistic interpretation of what is an 
     independent farmer.
       The establishment of at least a quasi-independent 
     agricultural sector is key to the success of the policy and 
     it will be necessary to design creative ways to sell 
     agricultural supplies. The implementers of the policy should 
     be flexible and should consider the development of 
     agricultural machinery cooperatives to service many farms 
     and/or independent farmers. Caritas currently is developing 
     an agricultural project in conjunction with the semi-official 
     Association of Small Farmers (ANEP). Under this project, the 
     feed, fertilizer and equipment purchases are made through a 
     state enterprise, but an agreement is made that the farmers, 
     who actually make the purchases, will be able to sell a 
     portion of the produce on the private market. This is a 
     constructive and realistic approach as it does not attempt to 
     circumvent the Cuban Government, which would not work in this 
     situation, but finds a formula that develops a quid pro quo 
     by operating, at least in part, through the Cuban foreign 
     trade system.
       Other arrangements paralleling this pilot should be 
     possible and might be of interest to certain U.S. 
     agricultural companies. The feed, fertilizer and equipment 
     purchases by farmers are facilitated by funds provided by 
     Caritas. U.S. agricultural firms, if they become involved, 
     initially would need to play a similar charitable role.
       The policy of supporting the gifts of food should continue. 
     Representatives of charitable organizations, such as Caritas 
     maintain that the receipt of food as gifts is easier for them 
     to handle than the purchase of food supplies. They have 
     negotiated arrangements with the Cuban Government to verify 
     the majority of its distributions of humanitarian 
     assistance--food and medicine, but it will not be possible to 
     replicate the same process if these supplies were to be 
     bought by Caritas. Even under current arrangements, Caritas 
     has to engage in extensive negotiations with the Cuban 
     Government regarding each shipment received.
     Medicines and Medical Supplies
       U.S. policy should be to eliminate all restrictions on the 
     sale and/or free distribution of medicines and medical 
     supplies.
       The current program, supported primarily by Caritas but 
     also by several other international NGOs, has developed an 
     extensive distribution system to over 100 hospitals 
     throughout the country. In consultation with the Cuban 
     Government, a viable system of monitoring the distribution of 
     the medicines and insuring that they are used for the 
     purposes intended has been established. Caritas prefers to 
     receive medicines and medical supplies as gifts. From their 
     operational point of view, purchases would necessitate 
     establishing an artificial and counter productive process. 
     Outside charities, primarily the Catholic Relief Service, 
     would need to supply the funds to make the purchases. Caritas 
     then would need to work through the Cuban foreign trade 
     system to gain access to the goods and to arrange procedures 
     for further sales and/or distribution. Regardless of what 
     happens vis-a-vis sales, medical gifts should continue to be 
     supplied to Cuba via Caritas and other NGOs.
       The issue of sales is extremely complicated. Officials in 
     the Castro Government repeatedly stated that they are 
     prepared to buy medicinal drugs but the process is hindered 
     by the regulatory maze imposed upon the Cuban Government and 
     Western pharmaceutical companies. In addition, they allege 
     that the United States does not respond to specific requests. 
     The delegation is aware that U.S. spokesmen, both at the U.S. 
     Interests Section and in the Department of State, believe 
     that the United States has removed all impediments, that the 
     licensing process is straight forward for U.S. pharmaceutical 
     companies and that, in the last analysis, the Cuban 
     Government either does not have the funds to make the 
     purchases or for political reasons does not want to make the 
     purchases. In a personal meeting with National Assembly 
     President Ricardo Alarcon, the delegation requested that the 
     Cubans provide specific examples where the Cubans have sought 
     medicines or medical supplies and the U.S. Government has 
     been an obstacle.
       While a protracted argument could take place as to whether 
     there is a bureaucratic problem from the U.S. side, the 
     delegation believes this is not the basic issue. All 
     restrictions should be lifted for the sale of medicines and 
     medical equipment. The delegation does not believe that this 
     will result in any particular economic or political gain for 
     Castro, but it could help the Cuban people. Without being too 
     quick to judge, the delegation believes the threat of 
     medicines and medical supplies being diverted for ``apartheid 
     medical treatment'' has been somewhat overstated. It would 
     appear that at least some of these cases are for specialized 
     treatment and may not be competing for resources that could 
     go to the local population. While the delegation members do 
     not accept at face value the more modest numbers that the 
     Cubans say are treated this way nor the protestation that all 
     such revenues go into the Cuban medical system, they do 
     believe that, in the main, increased medicines and medical 
     supplies will have positive benefits to the Cuban people. 
     This is one of the policy objectives of the delegation.
       An alternative would be to simplify the regulatory process 
     from the U.S. side by reworking the key control paper, the 
     ``Guidelines of Sales and Donations for Medicines and Medical 
     Supplies to Cuba.'' In discussions, Paragraph 24 appeared to 
     be a particularly troubling paragraph. This will, inter alia, 
     make it easier for pharmaceutical companies and make the 
     Cuban market somewhat less bureaucratic and potentially more 
     attractive.
       Under any circumstance, the delegation believes 
     consideration should be given to establishing a general 
     license for donations and sales of medicines and medical 
     supplies to non-governmental organizations and humanitarian 
     institutions, such as hospitals.

[[Page 9450]]

     The delegation suggests, if the alternative were pursued, 
     that a general license be developed outlining a few basics 
     including: where the medicine is going; types of people for 
     whom intended; certification from the sending/receiving 
     organization of us. Consideration should be given to 
     identifying a U.S. purchasing agent who could serve as an 
     expediter and independent bridge between the U.S. 
     pharmaceutical firms and Cuban ``customers'' to expedite 
     sales and monitor delivery.
       The delegation does not accept the statement that the 
     impact of the embargo has severely harmed the Cuban health 
     system, as argued by Castro's spokesmen, but accepts the fact 
     of shortages. Further, it is recognized that U.S. policy does 
     make the purchase of materials for U.S. producers more 
     difficult. The procedure now in place is sufficiently 
     cumbersome and bureaucratic resulting in diminishing interest 
     in the U.S. companies selling to Cuba. A particular problem 
     is the acquisition in the United States of spare parts, a 
     very specialized need that a purchasing agent could help 
     solve. The U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign 
     Assets Control (OFAC) needs to examine how money transfers of 
     sales can be expedited. The licensing process must be made 
     unambiguous and clear.
       Under current circumstances, the bulk of the deliveries of 
     food and medicines are handled today by the Catholic Relief 
     Services. With the new executive actions in Washington, 
     additional suppliers may increase their assistance and/or 
     sales. Means of access to Cuba remain limited. Although the 
     Administration has suggested that licensed goods could be 
     eligible for transit on charter flight, the delegation has 
     recommended steps be taken to permit more direct 
     transportation, including by DHL, UPS or other air shippers 
     and by U.S. ships that could be authorized--without penalty--
     to make Cuban port calls. The current system that requires 
     Caritas to haul medicines, medical supplies and food from 
     U.S. points of collection--particularly from Florida 
     sources--to Canada for shipment to Havana verge on the 
     absurd.
     Remittances
       Remittances are an extremely valuable support mechanism for 
     the Cuban people. They should be supported not only for 
     delivery to individual Cubans but also to independent 
     humanitarian organizations. I should be recognized that the 
     ultimate beneficiaries will be both the individual recipients 
     and the Cuban Government. Such funds will be used to meet 
     basic human needs. The purchase of necessary items in Cuba 
     will result in some portion of the cash remittances flowing 
     into state controlled economic outlets. In this sense, Castro 
     does make some gains. Nevertheless, the delegation believes 
     this is a very important step not only to help Cuban citizens 
     but also to start the economic enfranchisement of a larger 
     number of Cubans.
       According to information received, remittances sent from 
     Dade County can not go directly to the Western Union office 
     in Havana. If true, this restriction should be lifted, as it 
     would facilitate remittances and be less costly for the 
     sender.
     Counter Narcotics Programs
       The delegation has not listed this issue as a 
     recommendation because the facts concerning the recent report 
     of Cuban drug running by the Colombian police at the port of 
     Cartagena are not clear. During the visit, the delegation 
     raised the drug question with the Foreign Ministry and it 
     was, in turn, raised with the delegation by the Minister of 
     Justice, who is the Chair of the Cuban National Commission on 
     Drugs. The delegation believes that, at the appropriate 
     moment, a more energetic effort should be made to test Cuban 
     willingness to engage in counter-narcotics programs. U.S. 
     representatives have proposed an experts meeting to discuss 
     specifics as a preface to any formal agreement. The 
     delegation understands the importance of proceeding on a 
     step-by-step basis but believes that the United States should 
     be flexible in its approach to this issue. The recent 
     crackdown against prostitutes, drug pushers and crime in 
     Havana is an indication that Castro recognizes that steps are 
     necessary to stop drugs. The United States should seek the 
     right time to introduce an agenda item that is in the best 
     interests of both countries. The Cubans have indicated 
     interest in a formal agreement and U.S. officials could 
     present this as a bargaining chip. There may be some value in 
     considering Caribbean narcotics flows in a broader 
     multinational context as well.
     Environmental Cooperation
       A number of environmental issues could be the basis for 
     cooperation. The delegation focused on one specific issue 
     during the January visit: the pollution of the Gulf of Mexico 
     and states such as Florida adjoining the Gulfstream caused by 
     raw sewage pouring into the Gulf from Havana and under north 
     shore sites. A number of scientific studies are being 
     considered and/or are underway examining pollution issues in 
     the Gulf, including near Cuba. The delegation believes this 
     subject requires further study with the purpose of 
     determining whether an action plan can be crafted of mutual 
     interest to the United States and to Cuba.
     Radio
       The political dissidents as well as several Cubans with 
     whom the delegation had chance encounters in the countryside 
     said Radio Marti was an important medium. An independent 
     journalist said he and his colleagues regularly passed 
     stories to Radio Marti and it was the biggest ``megaphone'' 
     for their articles. Nevertheless, the delegation received 
     considerable criticism about Radio Marti's program content. 
     As one dissident said, ``Radio Marti does not need to belabor 
     the Cuban people with what is wrong in Cuba. We live here. We 
     know that.'' There was also a frustration, by a leading human 
     rights activist, that the ``people who went to Miami do not 
     speak for Cubans and should not dominate the radio.'' Another 
     said the radio was unnecessarily polemical.
       There was interest in more balanced news and commentary. 
     Listeners are anxious to have solid comprehensive reporting 
     on world affairs, as well as comment on developments in 
     science, the arts and other things that are of interest but 
     from which they are cut off. They also would favor more 
     cultural and music programs. For the second time (the first 
     being the Association's trip in December 1996), no one in the 
     independent sector was found who had ever seen TV Marti.
      Telecommunications
       The Cuban phone company ETECSA was formed as a state 
     monopoly in 1994 and is complete controlled by the Cubans, 
     although the Italian company, STET, has a 29 percent 
     interest. STET and ETECSA have a 20-year concession from the 
     Cuban Government and a 12-year exclusive concession. A target 
     is to have the Cuban phone system ``modernized'' by the year 
     2005. Penetration levels are about 1 telephone for 27 Cubans; 
     the 2005 target is a 1 to 10 ratio. STET reportedly made an 
     initial investment of $200 million and is scheduled to send 
     an additional $800 million over the course of the contract. 
     The funds are provided from Italy's foreign aid program; STET 
     reportedly receives special tax considerations for this 
     investment.
       The Cuban Minister of Communications and the Director of 
     Telecommunications expressed a strong interest in more 
     foreign investments in all areas of telecommunications. They 
     are, however, reluctant to give the citizens complete access 
     to Internet. As an example, while cellular phones are being 
     developed under the rubric CUBACEL with a Mexican partner, 
     security concerns significantly have slowed this effort.
       Castro and his Minister of Interior have succeeded in 
     implementing a program of very tight control of Cuba's access 
     to the Internet and are opposed to expanding the 
     telecommunications sector and Internet. The Cubans also 
     completely control the Internet server provider (ISP). The 
     Cubans have an intra-island Internet with which university-
     approved people and others have access. In addition, there 
     are several Internet sites within Cuban which are available. 
     In terms of international internet, individual Cubans can 
     access only those sites approved for them. For example, a 
     medical university may have access to certain medical sites, 
     but each is encrypted, monitored and recorded.
       At the same time, the rapid technical advances in the world 
     telecommunications industry create a serious dilemma for the 
     Cuban regime. They need to have their key people on Internet 
     for scientific and educational reasons, but are hesitant to 
     grant unlimited access. To restrict this, they have worked 
     with a German encryption and monitoring firm to keep track of 
     ``who does what'' on Internet in Cuba. The Castro regime is 
     making a strong effort to record all e-mail and all other 
     computer transmissions. The delegation was advised that while 
     Cubans now eagerly exchange e-mail transmissions--each 
     delegation member received calling cards with e-mail 
     addresses--all e-mail is monitored and recorded through one 
     central server. While Cuban officials would not acknowledge 
     this, the delegation was advised that only about 200 Cubans 
     have complete, unfettered access to the Internet. The Cuban 
     government has not resolved the basic conflict of how it can 
     aspire to being a modern technological state without allowing 
     more of its people access to the complete international 
     internet With--technological advances proceeding to mind-
     numbing speed, it is reasonable to assume that Castro will 
     not be able to deter major information flows arriving in 
     Cuba. It should be U.S. policy to foster this information 
     revolution.
       There is, however, an immediate threat to expanding 
     telecommunications links to Cuba stemming from a decision by 
     a U.S. District Court to award $187 million in damages to the 
     families of the aborted 1996 ``Brothers to the rescue'' 
     mission. These funds are frozen Cuban assets in the United 
     States. The Cubans have threatened that if these assets are 
     seized that they would cut direct telephone service between 
     the United States and Cuba. This would clearly set back the 
     many faceted opportunities that are just now emerging in 
     terms of telecommunication links to Cuba and the provision of 
     a rich and diversified body of information to the Cuban 
     people. Such action would neither be in U.S. national 
     interests nor helpful to Cuban citizens.
     Vignettes and Personal Experiences
       The delegation's strong endorsement for a more simplified 
     system by which Americans

[[Page 9451]]

     can travel to Cuba is founded on personal experience. Armed 
     with all necessary travel documents--from the Department of 
     Treasury (OFAC) and from the Cuban Government (a visa)--the 
     delegation sought the simplest and most direct travel route. 
     All options were explored. Direct Miami charter flights were 
     the first option. Only four flights were scheduled per week--
     now it is up to 11 and rising--with three leaving Miami at 
     8:00 in the morning with a requested check in time of 3:00 
     a.m. Logistics, red-tape and over bookings prompted the 
     concerned travel agency to recommend close attention to the 
     recommended check-in time. At the time of request, flights 
     only went on Monday, Friday and Saturday. Aside from the fact 
     that the delegation was scheduled to fly on a Sunday, no 
     seats were available for Saturday or Monday. The delegation 
     passed up this option, made available by the March 20 
     Presidential action, and traveled from Miami to Cancun, 
     changed planes and flew onward to Havana. The elapsed time 
     from Washington was nine hours. The return was a similar nine 
     hours. This is not an efficient system and totally 
     unnecessary. Of more importance then the delegation's 
     inconvenience is that this type of an awkward system impacts 
     negatively on expanded travel between the two countries, as 
     called for in the January 5 declaration.
       The 50,000 seat baseball stadium is an excellent place to 
     meet Cubans in an informal basis. There is much congeniality 
     and beer drinking in the stands. The four cent seat price 
     makes the fight about the exhibition game revenues for the 
     home game with Baltimore an absurdity. Even if the price is 
     tripled for the game, the gate receipts in Cuba will be 
     minimal.
       The delegation visited Pinar del Rio Province, the capital 
     by the same name and the small town of Vinales. The visit was 
     undertaken in an unstructured and unofficial capacity and in 
     a relaxed atmosphere. Although the following comments appear 
     random, they do provide a general commentary concerning 
     conditions, as seen by the delegation.
       The delegation learned that bookings for the bus from 
     Vinales to Havana during the time of the Pope's visit were 
     made many days in advance and could not meet the demand. The 
     Government found eight extra buses from somewhere and each 
     was filled for the trip to Havana to see the Pope. The 
     Catholic Church in Vinales has grown some since the Pope's 
     visit, although now only has a congregation of 50 persons. 
     There is a Spanish priest assigned to Vinales. Several 
     delegates walked into the cultural center and were briefed by 
     a bilingual Cuban program director who welcomed the chance to 
     show his center to Americans. Responding to a delegation 
     suggestion, the Cuban program director took three delegation 
     members into a computer center where four computers were 
     being used by ten year olds in an after school program. Such 
     computer training is integrated into school activities. The 
     group also visited a repair center where all sorts of 
     electronic equipment--TV, radio, computers--were being 
     repaired. When spare parts did not exist, they were being 
     created. Several of the young service man in the electronics 
     shop had engineering degrees and one also had a CPA and 
     business degree. Several of the Cuban technicians accepted 
     the delegation's invitation for a further discussion in a 
     local bar where an active exchange occurred. As an example of 
     progress. As one example of progress beer which was largely 
     imported several years ago, now is produced in Cuba and at 
     each restaurant visited, Cuban beer was sold. It is 
     competitive in quality to the various imported beers.
       The young technicians described that each had or would have 
     compulsory military service: two years are required if the 
     Cuban has had no college training and one year, if college 
     educated. One of the engineers said that he was living in a 
     house given him by the government that was empty but had been 
     the house of a Cuban now in exile. He did not want to give up 
     his house--the exiles are history, he said.
       The young men thought that conditions were better now than 
     in 1991, a theme heard repeated in several other informal 
     conversations. In the country, the people neither look 
     downtrodden or undernourished. Tourism has helped. They all 
     listen to Radio Marti but do not find it interesting; the 
     radio appears to assume the listeners are stupid. They would 
     prefer music and real news. The delegation offered the Cubans 
     an opportunity to ask questions and the young men responded 
     with tough questions about Vietnam, Iraq, Israel and 
     Impeachment. After two hours of open dialogue during which no 
     animosity to Americans was displayed, they expressed their 
     appreciation for the candid talk because they only receive 
     one side of the news and they wanted to hear the American 
     side.
       Despite the appearance of more goods in the countryside, an 
     arrival of a shipment of shoes at a local store in the Pinar 
     del Rio capital city resulted in a mad scramble by the local 
     citizens to buy new inexpensive shoes. This suggests a 
     certain lack of everyday clothing in that provincial center. 
     At the same time, the pharmacy was stocked fully with 
     medicines and a hardware store had all the needed paint and 
     building supplies that one would see in an American suburb--
     the only problem is that only licensed people could buy in 
     this store.
       Driving to Pinar del Rio from Havana demonstrated the 
     shortage of transportation. Individuals or groups waited 
     along the road--much of the 80 mile stretch--for a lift. 
     Buses are infrequent and always filled to capacity. Open-back 
     trucks always could be seen hauling between 3 to 20 people. 
     It is the law to stop to collect passengers. Police check 
     points were every 10 to 15 miles. In the Pinar del Rio area 
     and in Vinales, a town eight kilometers away, the principal 
     means of transportation was bicycle, although walking and 
     hitchhiking were very popular ``modes of transportation.'' An 
     occasional car, or an even less frequently old decrepit 
     Soviet tractor would be seen.
       An interesting footnote: Che is the national ikon. Handsome 
     dashing portraits, T-shirts and other reproductions of a chic 
     32 year old revolutionary cult figure abound. No personality 
     cult of Castro is evident.
       The delegation was advised by Church figures that the high 
     abortion rates were primarily a result of poverty and used as 
     population control.
       A spontaneous stop at a tobacco firm was very revealing. 
     The farm was totally self-sufficient. A family of at least 
     three, possibly four generations, all living under one roof--
     with no electricity, indoor plumbing or telephone--yet all 
     appeared healthy and happy. The nine children (in all age 
     groups) were well dressed and engaged actively in school. 
     Beginning in fifth grade, many students learn English and 
     they practice their new skills on the Association visitors. 
     They were positive about their education and free medical 
     treatment. A doctor visits to the house whenever needed. The 
     delegation was told that ``Fidel not only helps the Cubans 
     but gives medicines and doctors to the world.'' The farm is a 
     family operation. Pesticides are state supplied and the land 
     is owned by the government. Wood plows are pulled by cattle 
     or oxen. Tobacco production netted the farmer visited about 
     $113 per year, but he and his family accepted their 
     existence. It is easy to overstate need when our finds 
     subsistence farmers who can care for themselves, have the 
     basics and have education and medicine provided. One would 
     think the young students would receive a broader perspective 
     through their educational experience, but it was not 
     immediately apparent in a short visit.
     A Final Note
       The delegation believes that the contacts developed, the 
     on-the-ground discussions and general observations have 
     provided each of the members with valuable insights into 
     Cuban realities. The delegation members will seek to 
     contribute their views to the public debate concerning U.S. 
     policy to Cuba. The bipartisan quality of the group, its 
     liberal to conservative construction, and its ability to be 
     one step removed from direct domestic political pressure may 
     permit the group as a whole, and individuals speaking from 
     the basis of their own unique insights, to contribute to a 
     greater national understanding of this critical subject. The 
     time is right for such a discussion.
         Representative Louis Frey, Jr., Republican-Florida (1969-
           1979), Chairman of Delegation; Senator Dennis 
           DeConcini, Democrat-Arizona (1977-1995); Senator Robert 
           Kasten, Republican-Wisconsin, House 1975-1979; Senate 
           1981-1993; Senator Larry Pressler, Republican-South 
           Dakota (1979-1997); Representative Alan Wheat, 
           Democrat-Missouri (1983-1999); February 22, 1999.
                                  ____



         schedule of cuban program activity, 10-16 january 1999

     Sunday 10 January
       10:15 PM: Arrive Joe Marti International Airport (Havana), 
     via Miami and Cancun. Welcome by Cuban Ministry of Foreign 
     Affairs official Raul Averhoff.
     Monday 11 January
       10:00 AM: Roundtable with MPs of the National Assembly, 
     chaired by Jorge Lezcano Perez, Chairman of the International 
     Relations Commission. Three other MPs participated including 
     Ramon Pex Ferro, Vice Chair of the International Relations 
     Commission and Jose Luis Toledo Santander who is also the 
     Dean of the Law School at Havana University. The roundtable 
     also included Miguel Alvarez, Advisor to the President of the 
     Parliament and Julio Espinosa, the Coordinator General of the 
     International Relations Commission.
       11:30 AM: Meeting with Roland Suarez, Director, Caritas 
     Cubana.
       1:00 PM: Visit to Havana City Planning Office with briefing 
     by Director Mario Coyula Cowley.
       2:30 PM: Meeting with Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs 
     Carlos Fernandez de Cossio.
       4:00 PM: Meeting with Papal Nuncio Benjamino Stella at the 
     Residence of the Apostolic Nuncio.
       7:00 PM: Dinner at a Paladares.
     Tuesday 12 January
       8:15 AM: Breakfast with Western journalists including 
     representatives or stringers representing CNN, ABC, BBC, US 
     News and World Report, Sun Sentinel and Clarin.
       9:30 AM: Meeting with Jose L. Rodriguez, Minister of 
     Economy and Planning.

[[Page 9452]]

       11:00 AM: Visit to the William Soler Children's Hospital. 
     Briefed by Dr. Diana Martinez, Director; Ramond E. Diaz, 
     Deputy Minister of Health and Dr. Paulino Nunez Castanon, 
     cardiovascular surgeon.
       12:30 PM: Luncheon with Western businessmen hosted by US 
     Interests Section Principal Officer Mike Kozak, including 
     Konrad Hieber (Mercedes Benz), Ian Weetman (Caribbean Finance 
     Investments, Ltd), Hans Keyser, (Danish Consul) and Jan 
     Willem Bitter (Dutch international lawyer).
       4:00 PM: Meeting with Miguel Figueras, Advisor to the 
     Minister, Ministry for Foreign Investment and Economic 
     Cooperation.
       5:30 PM: Discussion at US Deputy Chief of Mission John 
     Boardman's residence with diplomatic representatives from 
     Portugal, France, the UK, Italy, Sweden, Spain, Germany and 
     the Netherlands.
       8:00 PM: Baseball game at Latinoamericano Stadium.
       10:00 PM: Dinner at Hemingway favorite--Bodgueda del Medio.
     Wednesday 13 January
       9:30 AM: Tour of historical sites of Old Havana, inspected 
     docks and terminals for cruise ships, informal discussions 
     and conversations in old city.
       12:30 PM: Luncheon with independent democrats in local 
     restaurant.
       2:30 PM: Visit and tour of Carlos J. Finlay Institute 
     (split delegation).
       3:00 PM: Tea with independent journalists (split 
     delegation).
       5:00 PM: Meeting with Robert Diaz Sotolongo, Minister of 
     Justice.
       7:00 PM: Reception at US Interest Section residence in 
     honor of three visiting US groups including students, 
     unviersity officials and cultural groups.
     Thursday 14 January
       Day trip to Pinar del Rio and Vinales. Series of impromptu 
     meetings with a broad cross range of local citizens, 
     including sugar farmers, church attendants, computer 
     technicians, engineers and store keepers.
     Friday 15 January
       AM: Free time in Havana. An opportunity to see shops, small 
     craft stores and museums.
       12:00 noon: Briefing at US Interests Section by Mike Kozak 
     and a cross-section of mission officers.
       3:00 PM: Meeting with Minister of Communications Silvano 
     Colas Sanchez, Vice Minister Oswaldo Mas Pelaez and Director 
     of Telecommunications Hornedo Rodriguez Gonzalez (partial 
     delegation).
       5:00 PM: Meeting with Oxfam/Canada representatives.
       7:00 PM: Meeting with National Assembly President Ricardo 
     Alarcon and the group of parliamentarians who met the 
     delegation on Monday 11 January.
     Saturday 16 January
       7:15 AM: Depart Havana by air to Cancun enroute to Miami, 
     Orlando and Washington.

  Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much, Alan.
  As I mentioned earlier, one of the things we do is organize study 
tours to a variety of countries in which Members and their spouses at 
their own expense participate in educational and cultural experiences. 
We have had a number of very interesting study tours, including ones to 
Canada, China, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, the former Soviet 
Union, Western and Eastern Europe, the Middle East and South America.
  I want to alert the membership that later this year in the fall we 
are going to be planning a study tour to Italy. This should be 
fascinating, not only because of Italy itself, but we have three former 
Members of Congress who are presently in Rome as ambassadors. Tom 
Foglietta is our Ambassador to Italy; Lindy Boggs, a former Chair of 
our Association, is the Ambassador to the Holy See at the Vatican; and 
George McGovern is our Ambassador to the Food and Agriculture 
Association. So we anticipate we will be well treated and that the 
study tour will be a very interesting one when we go in the fall.
  In September of 1998 the Association conducted a study tour of 
Vietnam, and I would like to invite the gentleman from Virginia, Bob 
Daniel, to report briefly on that trip.
  Mr. DANIEL. Thank you, President McHugh.
  This fall, as was mentioned, a delegation of four former Members of 
Congress visited Vietnam for 6 days. In Hanoi, meetings were held with 
former Representative, now U.S. Ambassador, Pete Peterson and the 
embassy staff, representatives of the U.S. Missing in Action Office, 
members of the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry and Assembly, 
representatives of the non-governmental organizations and others in 
leadership positions.
  In Ho Chi Minh City, the former Saigon, the delegation met with 
American and Vietnamese businessmen, bankers and lawyers, the head of 
the International Relations Department at the Vietnam National 
University, the publisher of a major newspaper and staff at the U.S. 
consulate. Time also was provided to visit cultural attractions and 
observe Vietnamese people and their lifestyle in everyday settings. In 
addition, trips were taken away from the city to the Mekong River and 
its Delta and to other rural and industrial areas.
  We found Vietnam a difficult country to understand. There is no 
question that it is a poor third world country with minimal 
infrastructure and tremendous economic problems.
  It is in many ways a land of contrasts. It has a Communist government 
whose importance seems to diminish the farther one goes into the 
countryside or the farther one goes away from Hanoi. The average yearly 
income in the North is $300 a year. In the South, it is $1,000 a year. 
However, a great many people in Vietnam own expensive motorbikes that 
cost up to $2,500. Obviously, there must be a large underground 
economy.
  The Vietnamese seem to want foreign investment, especially from the 
United States, but the many rules, huge bureaucracy and rampant 
corruption sent out a different message.
  There is relatively little investment from the United States and very 
little U.S. aid of any kind. Vietnam is probably 5 to 10 years away 
from being attractive to many foreign investors, although the large 
number of literate workers and the very low pay scale have attracted 
some companies.
  Despite the poverty, most people have the basic essentials such as 
food, mainly rice, and minimal housing. While there is dissatisfaction, 
the economic problems appear to be accepted as a normal part of life.
  Sixty percent of the population is 26 years of age or under. Eighty 
percent is under the age of 40. The Vietnamese are working to establish 
a banking and legal system and are attempting to privatize basic 
industries. Government representatives are cooperating with the U.S. 
Embassy and the Missing in Action Office to identify the remains of 
1,564 Americans still missing in action.
  Vietnam is the fourth largest country in Southeast Asia with a 
population of 77 million people. It seems to be a low priority in terms 
of U.S. foreign policy. It appears that a small amount of interest, 
exchange programs and aid money could go a long way in building 
relations with a country that, despite the war, does not harbor strong 
anti-U.S. feelings.

           Report of Study Tour To Vietnam October 8-14, 1998

             (By Louis Frey, Jr., Immediate Past President)


                              Introduction

       A delegation of former Members of Congress, their spouses 
     and guests visited Vietnam from Thursday, October 8 through 
     Wednesday, October 14, 1998. The delegation included: former 
     Representative Robert Daniel and Linda Daniel, former 
     Representative Louis Frey and Marcia Frey, former Senator 
     Chic Hecht, former Representative Shirley Pettis-Roberson and 
     Ben Roberson, and Irene and Teryl Koch (friends of the 
     Robersons). The group was accompanied by Edward Henry of 
     Military Historical Tours, who arranged the visit. The trip 
     focused on Hanoi in the northern part of Vietnam and Ho Chi 
     Minh City in the south. Three days were spent in each area.
       In Hanoi, meetings were held with: former Representative 
     now U.S. Ambassador Pete Peterson and staff of the U.S. 
     Embassy; representatives of the U.S. MIA office; members of 
     the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry and Assembly; members of the 
     American-Vietnamese Friendship Society; the Executive Vice 
     President of the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce; local business 
     leaders; and Tom Donohue, President of the American Chamber 
     of Commerce, who was speaking in Hanoi.
       In Ho Chi Minh City, the delegation met with: American and 
     Vietnamese business leaders, bankers and lawyers; staff of 
     the U.S. Consulate; members of the American Chamber of 
     Commerce in Vietnam; an American hotel manager; Vice Chairman 
     of the Red Cross in Vietnam; head of the International 
     Relations Department at the Vietnam National University; and 
     the publisher of a major Ho Chi Minh City newspaper. Time 
     also was provided to visit the cultural and war museum and to 
     observe Vietnamese people and their lifestyle in everyday 
     settings. In addition, trips were taken outside the city to 
     the Delta area and the Mekong

[[Page 9453]]

     River, to small villages that produced pottery and to an 
     industrial area that had factories producing, among other 
     items, Nike shoes.
       A list of people the delegation met in Vietnam is appended 
     to this report.


                          Overall Impressions

       Vietnam is a difficult country to understand. There is no 
     question that it is a poor Third World country, with minimal 
     infrastructure and tremendous economic problems. It is, in 
     many ways, a land of contrasts.
       It has a Communist government, whose importance seems to 
     diminish the farther one goes into the countryside or the 
     farther one is from Hanoi.
       The average yearly income in the North is U.S. $300; in the 
     south it is U.S. $1,000. However, a great many people in 
     Vietnam own motorbikes that cost from U.S. $1,000 to U.S. 
     $2,500. Obviously, there is a large underground economy.
       The Vietnamese seem to want foreign investment, especially 
     from the United States, but the many rules, huge bureaucracy 
     and corruption send out a difference message. There is 
     relatively little investment from the United States and very 
     little U.S. aid of any kind. Vietnam probably is five to ten 
     years away from being attractive to many foreign investors, 
     although the large number of literate workers and the very 
     low pay scale have attracted some companies.
       Despite the poverty, most people have the basic essentials, 
     such as food (rice) and minimal housing. While there is 
     dissatisfaction, the economic problems appear to be accepted 
     as a normal part of life.
       Sixty percent of the population is 26 years of age or 
     under; 80 percent is under the age of 40.
       The Vietnamese are working to establish a banking and legal 
     system, and are attempting to privatize basic industries.
       Government representatives are cooperating with the U.S. 
     Embassy and the U.S. MIA office to identify the remains of 
     the 1,564 Americans still missing in action.
       Vietnam is the fourth largest country in Southeast Asia (77 
     million people), but seems to be a low priority in terms of 
     U.S. foreign policy. It appears that a small amount of 
     interest, exchange programs and aid money could go a long way 
     in building relations with a country that, despite the war, 
     does not harbor strong anti-U.S. feelings.


                         U.S. EMBASSY BRIEFING

       Ambassador Peterson assembled all the key members of his 
     staff to brief the delegation. The Ambassador indicated at 
     the beginning that one of the primary missions of the Embassy 
     is to find any Vietnam veterans who are alive, or the remains 
     of the MIAs. They have found 50 sets of remains in the last 
     17 months that have been repatriated to the United States. 
     There are 1,564 Americans missing in Vietnam, 2,081 in 
     Southeast Asia. The U.S. MIA office has concentrated on 196 
     cases that are called ``last known alive cases.'' They have 
     reduced these cases to 43, U.S. volunteers go to Vietnam 
     periodically to help excavate crash sites. Young people from 
     Vietnam and the United States do much of the work. Ambassador 
     Peterson said he is proud of the job that is being done. He 
     said the United States also aids Vietnam in identifying their 
     missing. The Vietnamese have over 300,000 MIAs, a fact which 
     the Ambassador believes is not generally recognized. It is 
     important that the veteran groups in the United States 
     understand what is being done. At the present time, it 
     appears there is a split in the veteran groups regarding the 
     effectiveness of this process. There is no question in the 
     Ambassador's mind that this is the number one priority, and 
     that it must be resolved satisfactorily before the United 
     States can move ahead in other areas with Vietnam. As 
     Ambassador Peterson stated, ``Never before in the history of 
     mankind has any nation done what we are doing. The efforts of 
     the Joint Task Force Full Accounting to honor the U.S. 
     commitment to our unaccounted-for-comrades, their families 
     and the nation are unprecedented.''
       The Political Counselor has four officers. The main thrust 
     in the political area is on human rights in an attempt to 
     move the Vietnamese in the right direction and encourage them 
     to initiate people-to-people programs. The problems created 
     by Agent Orange still are talked about and must be addressed. 
     Environmental matters also are being discussed with 
     Vietnamese officials. Vietnam does not have a nuclear power 
     plant, although apparently they want such a facility. The 
     Vietnamese want many high-tech items, but do not have 
     training even on the basics.
       Embassy officials stated that there basically is no aid 
     program in Vietnam, but suggested that the United States 
     should help economically and work to keep Vietnam healthy. 
     Major responsibilities of the Economic Counselor are to 
     promote U.S. exports to Vietnam and to arrange trade shows 
     and missions. Three economic officers are working on the 
     trade agreement, which is the key to U.S.-Vietnamese economic 
     relations. Limited progress has been made so far. The 
     copyright agreement is completed, and a narcotics agreement 
     is in process.
       The Vietnamese are working on economic reforms and are 
     attempting to improve the legal code. They are trying to 
     convert from a government-controlled economy to a market 
     economy and to encourage the private sector and discourage 
     state-owned businesses. However, many of the major 
     industries, such as telephone and electricity, still are 
     state-owned. Vietnam has a graduated income tax system with 
     10 percent tax on the first U.S. $200, 20 percent on the 
     first U.S. $500 and 25 percent on all income over U.S. 
     $10,000. Because of the underground economy, many people do 
     not pay taxes. There also is a sales tax.
       Agriculture is the major industry in Vietnam, with 80 
     percent of the people involved. They need help with genetics, 
     bulk feed and livestock. Agricultural research can help, 
     especially in the soybean area. Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS) 
     sponsors a program that has brought 32 Vietnamese to the 
     United States to learn more about agriculture. The state of 
     Florida is reviewing the possibility of opening an office in 
     Vietnam and initiating a college extension program. Land has 
     been returned to the farmers, but in typical communist 
     fashion, i.e, they own the land, but they do not. Land can be 
     passed on to family members and apparently be leased for up 
     to 40 years, but the state still owns the land.
       The Consular Office handles the normal jobs of overseeing 
     U.S. citizens and helping with passports and visas. This 
     section has 11 full-time U.S. employees and six part-time 
     local employees. They deal with many non-immigrant visas, 
     mostly for students. They also handle health issues. Medical 
     needs are basic, such as latex gloves, clean sheets and 
     sterile items. The health care system is poor, with little 
     sanitation. If an Embassy staff member has a broken bone or a 
     serious ailment, he or she must leave the country for care.
       The Embassy is located in a nine-story building that 
     resembles a mine shaft, it has one elevator that does not 
     always work. The Ambassador would like to have a different or 
     new Embassy.
       The Ambassador concluded the briefing by stating that there 
     are few U.S. exchange programs and that the United States 
     could do more in Vietnam. He believes it is in the U.S. 
     interest to keep the population healthy and educated. The 
     bottom line is that Ambassador Peterson thinks progress is 
     being made and that, in ten years, the U.S. relationship with 
     Vietnam should be as strong as it presently is with South 
     Korea.


                      VIETNAM GOVERNMENT MEETINGS

       The Vietnam Assembly, which has 450 Members, began in 1956 
     with a single house. Assembly Members meet twice per year for 
     one month. There is a standing committee that conducts 
     business when the Assembly is out of session. There are 120 
     female Members (26.7 percent), which they claim is one of the 
     six best percentages of female representation in the world. 
     There are 54 ethnic groups represented in the Assembly. 
     Vietnam has 61 provinces, each of which is represented by 
     five Members. In addition, there are Members who are former 
     South Vietnamese military officers. Assembly Members stated 
     that there is a great deal of discussion and dissension 
     within the Assembly, and that it is not a rubber stamp for 
     the government. Recommendations by the government have been 
     defeated. Assembly Members are nominated by the national 
     party, but the commune villages or trade unions can reject 
     them. It is interesting that, even in Vietnam, all politics 
     truly are local.
       The Vice President of Vietnam is a woman. Fifty-four 
     percent of the population is female. Women head 16 percent of 
     the 40,000 businesses in Vietnam. This particularly is 
     interesting because Confucianism does not accept women as 
     equal. However, Vietnam was influenced by Ho Chi Minh, who 
     declared equality between the sexes and had that fact written 
     into the 1945 Constitution.
       Education is important in Vietnam. Vietnamese government 
     officials stated that there is a literacy rate of 90 percent, 
     with 87 percent of the female population being literate.
       The head of the Vietnam-U.S. Friendship Society (Viet My 
     Society) is a woman who is a seasoned political veteran. She 
     personally feels friendship with the United States even 
     though her son was born in a shelter during the U.S. bombing 
     raids in 1972. She believes that most people in the United 
     States do not understand Vietnam. They have a wartime vision 
     of Vietnam that has long since changed. In the delegation's 
     opinion, this is an accurate observation. She believes that 
     the U.S. veteran groups visiting Vietnam are helpful, as they 
     personally have the opportunity to see a different and new 
     Vietnam. It is interesting to note that many of her 
     complaints are the same as those of politicians and voters in 
     the United States, e.g., that there is not enough money in 
     the budget for education--only 15 percent, that environmental 
     problems are great and that the situation is one of the 
     industrialist versus the environmentalist.
       Vietnamese government officials stated that the population 
     growth rate is 2.1 percent. However, it does not appear that 
     there is any population control. In the villages, everyone 
     wants a male child, so many families have three, four or five 
     children until they have a son. Confucianism teaches that the 
     job of the man is to take care of the woman. For instance, 
     the father takes care of a

[[Page 9454]]

     daughter until she is married. Then the husband takes care of 
     his wife until the husband dies. Then it is the job of the 
     son to take care of his mother. As one Vietnamese said 
     regarding birth control, one of the problems is that in rural 
     areas there is no television or radio. People go to bed early 
     and do not have much else to do.
       There is a tremendous problem with unemployment in Vietnam, 
     especially as the young population ages. The government 
     states that the unemployment rate is 6.7 percent and that the 
     underemployment rate is 36 percent. Inflation several years 
     ago in Vietnam was 775 percent, but was down to 3.6 percent 
     in 1997. The Vietnamese government has issued 4,200 licenses 
     for foreign investment. Officials stated that domestic saving 
     has increased to 20 percent of the GDP. The GDP had a growth 
     rate of seven to nine percent between 1991 and 1997. The 
     problems in Asia have slowed this growth rate down to a 
     reported 6.4 percent during the first half of 1998. Observing 
     what is happening in Vietnam, one questions these figures. 
     The officials were honest when they said that economic reform 
     and political reform are necessary. They indicated that it is 
     essential to establish a rule of law and to streamline the 
     government apparatus. They also demonstrated how a poor 
     infrastructure and inadequate competition between their 
     industries have stifled growth. They have the same concern 
     that exists in many parts of the world with the tremendous 
     gap between the few rich and the many poor. Their goal is to 
     privatize over 1,503 presently state owned enterprises by 
     2002. The economic slowdown has caused them to suspend some 
     major projects, such as highways that require a great deal of 
     capital.
       There is a drug problem in Vietnam, mainly heroin and 
     cocaine. The government believes that the answer is 
     education, and they rely on families to solve the problem. Of 
     course, they claim that drugs are not much of a problem, but 
     admit usage is growing.
       In Vietnam, a welfare system basically is nonexistent. The 
     government will give money to help, i.e., to buy a pig to 
     start a farm or buy some tools to help start a trade, but 
     there is no welfare payment for food or housing. Officials' 
     main complaint is that there is not much U.S. investment--
     only $1 billion--which ranks it eighth in the world in terms 
     of foreign investment in Vietnam. A minor irritation is that 
     Vietnamese business representatives are having problems 
     receiving visas from the U.S. Embassy.
       The Vietnamese are proud of their policy of independence. 
     They stated that they want to have peaceful cooperation with 
     every region of the world. They presently have friendly 
     relations with 167 countries and diplomatic relations with 
     120 countries, including Russia, the United States, China and 
     Japan. The Vietnamese are making serious efforts to promote 
     friendship and cooperation in Asia and will host the Sixth 
     Asian Summit in 1999 in Hanoi. Vietnam also will be a full 
     member of APEC in 1999. There are historical problems with 
     China, including land-related problems which they indicated 
     should be solved by the year 2000. In addition, there are 
     disputes over islands in the South China Sea. These problems 
     extend beyond China to Malaysia and other Southeast Asian 
     countries. Vietnam has agreed to settle these problems 
     peacefully, without the use of force.
       Their trade with China of $1 billion is about equivalent to 
     their trade with the United States. They hope to improve 
     their relations with the major powers in the world and want 
     to become a member of the World Trade Organization. The 
     Vietnamese have established a consulate in San Francisco and 
     are hoping that the current modest trade with the United 
     States will increase. They also hope that direct U.S. 
     investment will grow from the 70 projects that presently are 
     underway. Specifically, they desire U.S. investment in oil 
     exploration, computers and food processing. Their focus is on 
     improving internal economics and normalizing trade with the 
     United States, putting the war in the past. All Vietnamese 
     officials concur that they need a trade agreement with the 
     United States, as the 40 percent tariff imposed by the United 
     States hurts Vietnam-U.S. trade.
       Vietnamese officials claim that military spending, which is 
     a government secret, is reasonable. The delegation attempted 
     to discover what ``reasonable'' meant, and the best 
     conclusion was that it was somewhere between 30 and 40 
     percent of the budget.


                        u.s mia office building

       One of the most important parts of the trip was the visit 
     to the U.S. MIA office in Hanoi, called the ``Ranch.'' The 
     mission of the office was defined by President Ronald Reagan 
     when he said, ``I renew my pledge to the families of those 
     listed as missing in action that this nation will work 
     unceasingly until a full accounting is made. It is our sacred 
     duty. We will never forget that.'' The MIA office coordinates 
     and executes all U.S. DOD efforts in Vietnam to achieve the 
     fullest possible accounting for Americans still missing as a 
     result of the conflict in Southeast Asia. There are two ways 
     of accomplishing this goal. The first is to return living 
     Americans; the second is to return identifiable remains. The 
     total number of Americans unaccounted for in Vietnam is 
     1,564. Of the 1,564, it has been determined that no further 
     action will be taken in 565 cases, including many where 
     pilots went down at sea.
       The MIA office began its work at Barbers Point, Hawaii in 
     January 1973. The MIA office in Hanoi was opened in July 
     1991. The Joint Task Force Full Accounting started in January 
     1992, There are four detachments: one located in Thailand, 
     one in Laos, one in Cambodia and one in Hanoi headquarters, 
     only four full-time active duty military personnel are 
     allowed, with the commanding officer being a Lieutenant 
     Colonel in the Army. Lt. Colonel Charles Martin, the current 
     commander of the office, indicated that there still are 954 
     active cases, which would keep the office busy until 2004. 
     (He compared this number to the 8,100 Americans lost in 
     Korea.)
       The Recovery Elements conduct jointly filed activities 
     approximately five times per year. During a joint field 
     activity conducted between June 23 and July 25, 1998, 50 
     cases were investigated in seven provinces, the research team 
     investigated seven cases in ten provinces and there were six 
     recovery elements where eight cases were excavated in six 
     provinces. Another recovery activity was conducted during 
     September 1998. From January 23, 1992 to the time of the 
     delegation's visit, there have been 281 remains repatriated, 
     and identifications have been completed on 104 of the 281. 
     The Pentagon has not announced the results of a number of 
     cases that have been sent back to Washington when 
     identification is possible. Since January 23, 1992, there 
     have been 97 live sighting investigations; however, the 
     number of reports is diminishing. As the Colonel said, ``Not 
     one investigation had led to any credible evidence of a live 
     American from the conflict in Southeast Asia being held 
     against his will.'' The MIA office is now down to the 
     priority cases of the last known alive. They repeated what 
     the Ambassador told the delegation that there initially were 
     196 individuals on this list but only 43 remain.
       It is important to know that Vietnam has cooperated with 
     the U.S. search for MIAs. The MIA office has reviewed over 
     28,000 documents and artifacts and has conducted 200 oral 
     history interviews, including one with Ambassador Peterson.


                            ho chi minh area

       Ho Chin Minh City and the south have much more energy and 
     action than the Hanoi area. Ho Chin Minh City has seven 
     million people, five million bicycles and three million 
     motorcycles. Negotiating busy intersections is an incredible 
     experience, as there are very few traffic lights. Cars are in 
     the minority and are extremely expensive: a 1997 American car 
     costs U.S. $120,000. Most motocycles are Hondas from Japan. 
     They cost U.S. $2,000 to $3,000 new and U.S. $300 to $1,000 
     used. The average annual income in the south is approximately 
     U.S. $1,000, compared to U.S. $300 in the north. Signs of the 
     underground economy are everywhere, with street barbers, 
     shops, markets and even row upon row of ``Dog'' restaurants.
       The Chinese are predominant in the Choulan section of Ho 
     Chin Minh City. In 1978, the Chinese population was one 
     million. However, many Chinese were forced to leave because 
     of the problems between Vietnam and China so that now there 
     are approximately 500,000 Chinese in Choulan. Before 1975, 
     the Chinese controlled the economy in the south. They still 
     are important, especially in areas of finance and currency.
       Economic problems do exist in the south. For instance, the 
     delegation stayed in a five-star hotel, which has 21 floors 
     but only 47 guests! A former employee of a Sheraton Hotel 
     said that it took two years to build the hotel and everyone 
     had been hired. Yet, the day before the opening, Sheraton 
     decided it did not make economic sense, closed the hotel and 
     fired all the people.
       Religion is divided in the south, the same as it is in the 
     north, with the majority being Buddhist, four to ten percent 
     being Catholic and the remainder with no religious 
     preference. Many believe in reincarnation. In a number of 
     cases, a body is buried for three years in one place and then 
     is exhumed and buried elsewhere, as they believe that the 
     soul finally has left the body.
       As explained to the delegation, there is a difference 
     philosophically between the people in the north and the 
     south. The people in the north live for the future. If they 
     acquire some money, they save it or invest in land or a 
     business. The people in the south live for today. They 
     acquire money, spend it and do not worry about tomorrow.
       Schools are terribly crowded because of the youthful 
     population. There are three sessions of school per day. 
     Education is free for the frist six years. Then all students 
     take an exam: if they pass, their education continues to be 
     free; if they fail and wish to remain in school, their family 
     must pay. In the rural areas, most students only attend 
     school for the first six years. Since 1990, English has been 
     the major foreign language taught. Prior to that, it was 
     Russian. The Vietnamese believe English is easy, especially 
     the written part. When students have completed high school, 
     they must take an exam to continue on to university. Again, 
     depending on how they do, university is free or they must 
     pay.

[[Page 9455]]

       The Vietnamese love to gamble. As you walk along the 
     street, you seek workers sitting and playing cards. There is 
     a daily lottery. They believe that nine is a lucky number for 
     women and seven for men.
       As mentioned previously, agriculture is the primary 
     industry in Vietnam, with 80 percent of the population 
     involved. In the south, they harvest three rice crops per 
     year, in the north, two crops per year. Much of the land is 
     fertile, as in the Mekong Delta, which has a population of 25 
     million in six provinces. The Mekong River is extremely long, 
     starting in China and going 4,200 kilometers through Vietnam 
     with nine branches flowing into the sea. The delegation 
     visited the town of My Tho on the river, which was founded in 
     1618 by the Chinese and taken over by the French in late 
     1800s. It has a population of 150,000 with its commerce 
     centered around the river. Further up the river, which was 
     brown with silt, is Unicorn Island, which served as 
     headquarters for the Vietcong during the war. The inhabitants 
     of the island live on and by the river. They are fishermen 
     and farmers, with three or four children to a family. This 
     area receives 90 inches of rainfall per year. One opinion all 
     of the delegation members had after seeing this area was how 
     tragic it was to have put young Americans in such miserable 
     conditions during the war.
       It was interesting to see the importance of tourism. Even 
     in the Mekong Delta, the tourist business is thriving. After 
     a walk through the jungle, you find restaurants where you can 
     sit and eat a decent meal. Tourism has slowed down 
     considerably because of the Asian financial problems, but it 
     still is important to the economy.
       At a dinner in Ho Chi Minh City, the delegation had the 
     opportunity to talk with some U.S nationals. One of the 
     individuals said that the Vietnamese desperately want and 
     need U.S technology. For instance, a Vietnamese oil well 
     pumps 400 barrels of oil per day. Nearby, there is an oil 
     well owned and operated by another country that pumps 4,000 
     barrels of oil per day. The contract the Americans have with 
     the Vietnamese government is to pump 1,000 barrels of oil per 
     day, which they say is easy to fulfill. All oil drilling is 
     offshore. These Americans confirmed the statements heard 
     before by the delegation that Vietnam is five to ten years 
     away from much investment potential and that it is a poor, 
     developing Third World country with a long way to go.
       The Vietnamese seem to have put the war behind them. For 
     instance, five years ago, the only job former members of the 
     South Vietnamese army would be hired for was peddling a 
     moped. Most of the army officers were required to go through 
     re-education camps--the higher the rank, the longer they 
     remained. Now, most jobs are open to everyone and there are 
     three former South Vietnamese army officers in the Vietnam 
     Assembly. Although this number is not large, the symbolism is 
     important. Also, the extremely young age of the population 
     means that many Vietnamese were not involved in nor even born 
     during the war. The main evidence of the war is the mines and 
     unexploded ordnance that kill at least 700 persons per year, 
     usually farmers.
       The American expatriates in Vietnam are typical, happy to 
     be ``a big fish in a small pond.'' Some have strong negative 
     feelings about the war and the U.S. participation in it. One 
     of the expatriates involved in the oil business said Vietnam 
     does not need an oil refinery because they cannot produce 
     enough oil for it to make economic sense, i.e., their oil 
     reserves are relatively small when compared to other sources. 
     He said the only reason the Vietnamese want an oil refinery 
     is the prestige that would result internationally.
       There are textile mills, cement and steel factories, with 
     70 percent of the invested money coming from Asia. During a 
     visit to a Nike facility, which is a joint venture with Korea 
     and which employs 8,000 people, the manager said the Koreans 
     are in Vietnam because of the low wages, which are set by the 
     Vietnamese government. The delegation was told that the 
     government had a problem with the Koreans four years ago and 
     sued the management of the Nike plant over abusing workers. 
     Korean supervisors allegedly were beating women workers, and 
     the defense was that this was the way operations were 
     conducted in Korea. The delegation was not allowed to enter 
     the plant, even after repeated requests.
       There are miles and miles of industrial parks in the area 
     called Dong Nai. They look similar to U.S. industrial parks, 
     but many of the buildings were vacant. There also is an 
     industrial park just south of Ho Chi Minh City, which is 
     called Saigon South and which they like to compare to Reston, 
     Virginia, However, after two or three years, they are just 
     beginning to entice businesses to locate in the park.
       Similarly, a shopping mall (Cora) recently opened south of 
     Ho Chi Minh City, but there were many vacant shops and few 
     customers. Supermarkets are beginning to install electronic 
     scanners. People must shop every day because they do not have 
     refrigerators.
       The roads, except those built by the United States, are 
     terrible. There is road construction everywhere. The road the 
     delegation took to the Delta was built on dikes and was very 
     narrow, but incredibly had two-way traffic. It took close to 
     three hours to travel 40 kilometers. There is a railroad that 
     connects Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. The train takes about 39 
     hours to complete the trip. There are three classes of 
     service on the railroad, including luxury cars. The cost is 
     fairly inexpensive. with a one-way fare costing U.S. $62. 
     Additional railroad lines running east and west are being 
     built by the government. Internal air travel is subsidized by 
     tourists. For instance, it cost U.S. $120 to fly between 
     Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City for a tourist, but only U.S. $30 
     or $40 for a Vietnamese citizen. There is not sufficient 
     money in the budget to improve the infrastructure on a short-
     term basis.
       The greatest asset of Vietnam is its intelligent workers 
     who are paid extremely low wages. At an evening meeting with 
     representatives of the U.S. business community, the 
     delegation heard repeatedly that Vietnam has a long way to 
     go. A banker said the only way his bank ever would loan any 
     money in Vietnam is if the parent organization outside 
     Vietnam guaranteed the loan. A developer who plans to 
     construct some beachfront condominiums in Vietnam claimed 
     that instead of the normal 70 percent foreign/30 percent 
     Vietnamese split, he had negotiated 100 percent foreign 
     ownership. The project was priced at $276.3 million, with 
     $67.5 million needed to start. However, he has been unable to 
     obtain any investors.
       The Vice Chairman of the Red Cross in Vietnam with whom the 
     delegation met made an impassioned plea for help from the 
     United States in treating dengue fever. This disease is 
     dramatically on the rise in Vietnam and Southeast Asia.
       A Vietnamese newspaper editor the delegation met at a 
     dinner claimed that there was a free press, although 
     television and radio are state-owned. Interestingly enough, 
     the next day an article appeared in a non-Vietnamese 
     newspaper that stated the press in Vietnam is controlled 
     totally by the government. The same problem exists in Vietnam 
     as it did in Eastern Europe, i.e., the outside world and its 
     economic success and political freedom cannot be hidden 
     forever. Some Vietnamese have computers with access to the 
     Internet and there also are televisions with satellite 
     hookups that include programs from the United States.
       An observation made by the delegation is that the 
     Vietnamese have a great deal of ingenuity. Several stories 
     illustrate this point.
       Several years ago, there was a rat epidemic in Vietnam. The 
     government agreed to give a cash bounty for each rat tail 
     brought to a government office. The gestation period for rats 
     is 30 days. Rather than killing the rats, the Vietnamese 
     began breeding them all across the country so that instead of 
     having fewer rats, there were more. It was a good cash crop!
       There also is a scheme involving antiques. It is forbidden 
     to take antiques out of the country. However, in some stores 
     they say it is all right and give documentation that they 
     state is correct. The dealer then tells a friend in customs 
     about the antique purchased so that it is confiscated and 
     returned to the store to be sold once again!
       The underground economy of Vietnam provides a second and 
     third income for families. The delegation met one family 
     where the breadwinner is an accountant with a government 
     agency. He is supporting 29 other family members who have no 
     official jobs. Apparently, this is not unusual.


                               conclusion

       The United States should pay more attention to Vietnam. It 
     has the fourth largest population in Southeast Asia and is 
     growing rapidly. Older members of the government are retiring 
     and being replaced with a younger generation who want to 
     change the system. Even though there is only one political 
     party, there is some dissension and discussion among the 
     various factions of the Assembly.
       The United States should enter into exchange programs, 
     assist with health problems and eventually bring Vietnam into 
     a trade status equal to that of most other countries in the 
     world. This appears to be a country where a minimum amount of 
     extra effort and money on the part of the United States could 
     pay large dividends in the future. It may take from five to 
     ten years to bring the political and economic machinery in 
     Vietnam to a point where private investments from the United 
     States increase dramatically, yet much can be done in that 
     period of time.
       Ambassador Peterson is well respected throughout the 
     country. He has a good team, which the delegation believes is 
     realistic in its appraisal of the tough job they face.
       The Vietnamese truly are assisting with U.S. MIA cases. It 
     appears that there is not the ill will one would expect after 
     a long war. A major reason for this is that the population is 
     so young. Furthermore, Vietnam's history shows that it has 
     fought foreigners for the last thousand years. The United 
     States is just one in a series of invaders. The Vietnamese 
     are attracted by the Yankee dollar and know-how. One Member 
     of the Vietnam Assembly summed it up when he said, ``What is 
     past is past. We need to look forward and build a better 
     future for both countries.''

[[Page 9456]]

     
                                  ____
   persons met by the U.S. association of former members of congress 
          delegation study tour to vietnam october 8-14, 1998

     Hanoi
       Tom Donohue, Head of the American Chamber of Commerce.
       Ambassador and Mrs. Pete Peterson (Vi Le), U.S. Embassy--
     Hanoi, No. 7 Lang Ha, Hanoi, Vietnam.
       Nguyen Van Hieu, Member of the National Assembly, 35 Ngo 
     Quyen Street, Hanoi, Vietnam.
       Vu Viet Dzung, Chief Officer of the Americas Desk, Ministry 
     of Foreign Affairs, 1 Ton That Dam Street, Hanoi, Vietnam.
       Tran Quoc Tuan, Vice Chairman, Office of the National 
     Assembly, Van Phong Quoc Hoi, 35 Ngo Quyen Street, Hanoi, 
     Vietnam.
       Vu Mao, Chairman, National Assembly Office, Member of the 
     National Assembly, Van Phong Quoc Hoi, 35 Ngo Quyen Street, 
     Hanoi, Vietnam.
       Ms. Pham Chi Lan, Executive Vice President, Vietnam Chamber 
     of Commerce, 33 Ba Trieu Street, Hanoi, Vietnam.
       Hoang Cong Thuy, Deputy Secretary General, Viet-My Society 
     (Vietnam-USA Association), 105/A Quan Thanh Street, Hanoi, 
     Vietnam.
     Ho Chi Minh City
       Truong Quang Giao, Vietnam News Agency, Manager, Quoc Te 
     International Hotel, 19 Vo Van Tan Street, District 3, Ho Chi 
     Minh City, Vietnam.
       Dr. Huynh Tan-Mam, Vice Director of the Red Cross, Vietnam 
     Red Cross--Ho Chi Minh City Chapter, 201 Nguyen Thi Minh Khai 
     Street, District 1, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
       Dr. Thai Duy Bao, Department Head, International Relations, 
     Vietnam National University, 10-12 Dinh Tien Hoang Street, 
     District 1, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
       Adrian Love, Independent Financial Advisor, 261-263 Le 
     Thanh Ton Street, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
       Pham Tan Nghia, Director, Vietnam-USA Society, 160 Dien 
     Bien Phu Street, District 3, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
       Ronald Kiel, Managing Director, 3M Representative Office, 
     55 Cao Thang Street, District 3, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
       Nguyen Ba Hung, Baker & McKensie International Lawyers, 10 
     Harcourt Road, Hong Kong.
       Chuyen D. Uong, Branch Manager, Citibank, N.A., 115 Nguyen 
     Hue Blvd., 15-F, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
       William Yarmey, Senior Marketing Officer, U.S. and Foreign 
     Commercial Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 65 Le Loi 
     Blvd., Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

  Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much, Bob.
  Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the Association conducts a wide variety 
of programs, some of which we have touched on this morning and which we 
hope to expand. This would not be possible without the support and 
active work of a number of people, and I would like to acknowledge the 
support we have had from our Board of Directors and our Counselors.
  In particular, I would like to thank the officers of the Association, 
John Erlenborn, who is chairing this session today and is our Vice 
President; Larry LaRocco, who is our Treasurer; and Jack Buechner, who 
is our Secretary. They have done a fantastic job. As others have said, 
Lou Frey, as our former Chair, also serves on our Executive Board.
  We also want to thank the Auxiliary, whose members have been 
instrumental, among other things, in making our Life After Congress 
seminars successful, in helping Members make the transition from the 
Congress to life after Congress.
  We would not be able to do anything if we did not have a very capable 
staff, and many of you are familiar with our staff and I know are 
grateful for their work. I would like to acknowledge their support: 
Linda Reed, our Executive Director; Peter Weichlein, our Program 
Officer, with special responsibility for the Study Group on Germany; 
Victor Kytasty, who is our Congressional Fellow in Ukraine; and Walt 
Raymond, who many of you know is our Senior Advisor for International 
Programs and works to put together many of these international efforts.
  We also maintain relations as an Association with the Association of 
Former Parliamentarians in other countries, and we are very pleased at 
lunch today we are going to have Barry Turner once again representing 
the former parliamentarians in Canada. We will hear a few words from 
Barry, for those of you who will join us for lunch.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform the House of those 
persons who have served in Congress and have passed away since our 
report last year. The deceased Members of Congress are the following:
  Watkins Abbitt of Virginia;
  Thomas Abernethy of Mississippi;
  E.Y. Berry of South Dakota;
  Gary Brown of Michigan;
  Lawton Chiles of Florida;
  James McClure Clarke of North Carolina;
  Jeffrey Cohelan of California;
  George Danielson of California;
  David W. Dennis of Indiana;
  Charles Diggs, Jr., of Michigan;
  Carl Elliott of Alabama;
  Dante B. Fascell of Florida;
  Barry Goldwater, Sr., of Arizona;
  Albert Gore, Sr., of Tennessee;
  Robert A. Grant of Indiana;
  Floyd K. Haskell of Colorado;
  Roman L. Hruska of Nebraska;
  Muriel Humphrey of Minnesota;
  Albert W. Johnson of Pennsylvania;
  Joe M. Kilgore of Texas;
  Walter Moeller of Ohio;
  Wilmer D. Mizell of North Carolina;
  Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut;
  Will Rogers, Jr., of California;
  D.F. Slaughter of Virginia;
  Gene Taylor of Missouri;
  Morris K. Udall of Arizona;
  Prentiss Walker of Mississippi;
  Compton L. White of Idaho;
  Chalmers Wylie of Ohio; and
  Sam Yorty of California.
  I would respectfully ask all of you to rise for just a moment of 
silence in the memory of our deceased Members.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the highlight of our presentation 
this morning. As you know, the Association presents a Distinguished 
Service Award to an outstanding public servant each year. The award 
rotates between the parties, as do the officers in our Association.
  Last year, the award was presented jointly to two exceptional former 
Republican Senators, Nancy Kassebaum Baker and Howard Baker. This year, 
as you know, we are pleased to be honoring the former House Speaker, 
Jim Wright.
  Jim Wright was born in Fort Worth, Texas, a city he represented in 
Congress from 1955 through 1989. He completed public school in 10 years 
and was on his way to finishing college in 3 years when Pearl Harbor 
was attacked. Following enlistment in the Army Air Corps, Jim received 
his flyer's wings and a commission at 19. He flew combat missions in 
the South Pacific and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and 
Legion of Merit.
  After the war, Jim was elected to the Texas legislature at age 23. At 
age 26 he became the youngest mayor in Texas when voters chose him to 
head their city government in Weatherford, his boyhood home.
  Elected to Congress at the age of 31, Jim served 18 consecutive terms 
and authored major legislation in the fields of foreign affairs, 
economic development, water conservation, education, energy and many 
others.
  Speaker Wright received worldwide recognition for his efforts to 
bring peace to Central America. He served 10 years as majority leader 
before being sworn in as Speaker on January 6, 1987. He was reelected 
as Speaker in January of 1989. A member of Congress for 34 years, Jim 
served with eight U.S. presidents and has met and come to know many 
foreign heads of state and current leaders of nations. A prolific 
writer, he has authored numerous books.
  He currently serves as a Senior Political Consultant to American 
Income Life Insurance Company and Arch Petroleum. He writes a frequent 
newspaper column, which I hope many of you have had the chance to read. 
I have. They are very insightful. And he occasionally appears on 
network television news programs. In addition, he is a visiting 
professor at Texas Christian University where he teaches a course 
entitled ``Congress and the Presidents.''
  This is a particularly difficult time for Jim. Among other things, he 
is moving his residence now, and that is why Betty, his wife, could not 
be with us. But we are really delighted that his daughter Ginger has 
come with him from Texas to be with us for this occasion.
  Jim, if you would come up, I have two presentations to make. The 
first is

[[Page 9457]]

a plaque. I am sure Jim has no plaques at home any more. I am going to 
read the inscription on this plaque, Jim; and I am going to read it 
from the paper since my eyes cannot read the inscription on the plaque. 
But I hope you can.
  It says: ``Presented by the U.S. Association of Former Members of 
Congress to the Honorable Jim Wright for his exemplary service to the 
State of Texas and the Nation as a combat pilot in World War II and 
recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross, as a mayor and State 
legislator, and as a Member of the United States Congress for 34 years, 
including his distinguished leadership as Majority Leader and Speaker 
of the House of Representatives. Washington, D.C., May 13, 1999.''
  On a more personal note, I am presenting Jim on behalf of all of us a 
scrapbook, which includes personal letters from many of us here and 
others who feel so strongly that Jim has contributed to the Congress 
and the country in ways which cannot be fully expressed but for which 
we are all deeply grateful.
  So, Jim, these are some of the letters, and I am sure there will be 
others coming in the mail. We would invite you, Jim, to say whatever 
you would like. We are delighted you are here, and we are very proud of 
your service.
  Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you so very much, Matt, and thanks to each of you, 
my former colleagues. I shall treasure and cherish these mementoes for 
as long as I live.
  I guess I am lucky to be here in a way today. Two months ago 
yesterday I was fortunate to have some rather complicated surgery. Good 
surgeons removed this jaw, and it was cancerous, and then they reached 
down to my lower left leg, for the fibula bone, from which they carved 
a new jawbone, and this is it, and it works.
  They also removed about one-fourth to one-fifth of my tongue, and 
that frightened my wife and others when they heard of it. I did not 
know about it at the time.
  But in addition to that bit of modern alchemy, they took a piece of 
skin from the upper part of my left leg and attached it, grafted it, to 
the tongue, and I hope you can understand me.
  All of this occasioned a comment from my long-time friend and former 
administrative assistant, Marshall Lynam, who said, ``You know, Mr. 
Speaker, we spent 40 years trying to keep your foot out of your mouth, 
and now it seems you got your whole leg in it.''
  Words would fail me were I to try to express adequately how much I 
appreciate this, particularly coming from those of you, almost all of 
you I served with, and whom I knew and became so attached to during all 
of those years.
  Like most of you, I guess, I had a lot more financial success before 
and after I served in Congress, but this experience of serving in this 
body will forever be professionally for me the outstanding achievement 
in my life. I enjoyed it thoroughly--most of the time. I think that 
would be true of all of us, truth to tell.
  I do want to encourage our Association and encourage individuals 
among us to participate in these splendid activities by which we spread 
knowledge and understanding of this peculiar institution, so peculiarly 
human, maybe the most human institution on earth.
  You know, the House and Congress can rise to heights of sparkling 
statesmanship and we can sink to levels of mediocrity, because we are 
human, prone to human error. But the more people are able to understand 
it, people abroad with whom our Nation must deal and youngsters on the 
college campuses, the stronger and firmer will be our hold upon the 
future.
  Since I left Congress in 1989, almost 10 years ago, I have been on 
between 45 and 50 different college campuses throughout the country, 
and that is the most fun I have, aside from being with my 
grandchildren. I guess it is second, because they are so vibrant, they 
are so alive, they are so quizzical, they are so questioning, all over 
the country. I have had the privilege of being at the University of 
Maine and the University of San Diego State. I have had the opportunity 
to visit Gonzaga University and the University of Miami. So it is 
spread across the country, and all of them, all of them, are 
interesting. They are all worth spending some time with. I would 
encourage that.
  I would hope that we, wherever we go and whatever we say and do, will 
have the grace to glorify this institution, so human, so imperfect, and 
yet so fraught with great opportunities, to uphold its standards and 
defend its honor, so often attacked, so frequently misunderstood, to 
the end that there might be a better and firmer appreciation of this 
hallowed form of government that was endowed by those who wrote our 
Constitution. Because I am convinced that, with all of its faults and 
flaws and human imperfections, it still is, just as it was in Abraham 
Lincoln's time, and may it forever remain, the last, best hope of 
earth.
  Thank you for this great honor.
  Mr. McHUGH. It is very clear that Jim Wright is as eloquent with his 
second jaw as he was with his first.
  Jim, we are truly proud of you and take joy in your being with us 
today and giving us the opportunity to honor you for your many years of 
service.
  I would like at this point sort of extra-record to invite our former 
distinguished minority leader and friend, Bob Michel, to say a word.
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, thank you so much for the 
opportunity to say just a few things, particularly prompted by our 
Association's giving the award this year to our former Speaker, Jim 
Wright. When I got the notice of it, I thought there could be no better 
choice and am so appreciative he has been so well received and under 
the conditions.
  I tell you, I have been privy to several of the columns that Jim has 
written, very descriptive, and they move you just about to emotional 
tears with his eloquence.
  I hope those of you who have not yet maybe had the opportunity to 
express your feelings in the letters that we find in the book that we 
have given Jim that you will do that. You can always add letters to 
that. It is a nice package of mementoes to keep.
  You know with what sincerity Jim appeared here today with his very 
nice remarks, and I just want to join in congratulating him and the 
Association, particularly, for their choice in selecting our former 
Speaker to receive this honor today.
  Thank you again. Jim, all the best to you.
  Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much, Bob. Thanks to all of you for being 
with us today and participating, especially since it was a special 
opportunity to honor Jim Wright.
  We have a program for the rest of the day. We hope that many of you 
will be able to participate in it. Of course, tonight we have our 
dinner.
  So, again, thank you for being with us. This does conclude the 29th 
Annual Report of the U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress. 
Thank you.
  Mr. ERLENBORN (presiding). The Chair again wishes to thank the 
members of the United States Association of Former Members of Congress 
for their presence here today.
  Before terminating these proceedings, the Chair would like to invite 
any former Members who did not respond when the role was called to give 
their names to the reading clerks for inclusion on the role. Good luck 
to you all.
  The Chair announces that the House will reconvene at 10:45 a.m.
  Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 28 minutes a.m.), the House continued 
in recess.

                          ____________________