[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24139-24150]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 MISCELLANEOUS TRADE AND TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I want to speak on the miscellaneous 
tariffs bill.
  Last spring, Senator Feingold and I sent a letter to the minority 
leader making it clear we would object to taking up S. 2200, a bill 
granting NTR status to Laos because of the human rights situation 
there. At the time we said:

       Reports emerging from Laos remain disturbing. Journalists, 
     human rights groups, and many of our constituents inform us 
     that the Laos government continues to be responsible for 
     serious human rights violations, and that conditions are 
     particularly difficult for the Hmong ethnic group.

  The situation in Laos has not changed, and, in fact, over the last 
several months more disturbing evidence has emerged that now is not the 
time for us to appear to be rewarding one of the most closed and 
repressive regimes. For the first time, we have independent 
corroboration of the types of charges which have been made by many 
Hmong residents of my State for years and by others who have fled Laos 
more recently.
  On September 13, 2004, Amnesty International issued a report entitled 
``Military Atrocities Against Hmong Children Are War Crimes.'' The 
report, which I will read from momentarily, details horrific crimes 
committed in May of this year reportedly by Laos soldiers. These crimes 
were captured on a graphic videotape smuggled out this summer and which 
I understand the State Department has taken very seriously, and they 
were also described by witness testimony.
  The attack took place against a group of children, five of whom were 
killed, in a remote area of the country, and was described by Amnesty 
International as follows:

       The 5 children, between 13 and 16 years old and part of an 
     ethnic Hmong rebel group, were brutally mutilated--the girls 
     apparently raped before being killed--by a group of 
     approximately 30-40 soldiers. The victims--four girls, Mao 
     Lee, 14; her sister Chao Lee, 16; Chi Her, 14; Pang Lor, 14; 
     and Tou Lor, Pang Lor's 15 year old brother--were killed 
     whilst foraging for food close to their camp. They were 
     unarmed.
       A witness, who has subsequently fled the country and been 
     recognized as a refugee by the United Nations High 
     Commissioner for Refugees, reported hearing one of the 
     soldiers saying: ``Hmong. Your mouth allows

[[Page 24140]]

     you to speak. Your vagina allows you to breed''.
       He then heard moans and a gunshot.
       A 14-year-old girl was shot in each breast and the other 
     bodies were mutilated by what appears to be high-powered 
     rifle shots fired at close range. One of the girls was 
     disemboweled.
       Several other members of the group were seriously injured 
     with gun shot wounds but managed to return to their 
     encampment. The rebels have little if any medicine and rely 
     on traditional treatments using plants found in the forest.

  It is my understanding that in the last several weeks, our State 
Department has delivered a demarche to the Lao Government, calling for 
thorough investigation of these atrocities which happened in May--an 
investigation that is credible and that would withstand scrutiny by the 
international community. To date, there has been no such investigation 
and the soldiers involved with these war crimes have not been held 
accountable.
  Also this year, came startling and deeply upsetting reports. Hundreds 
of former Hmong-Lao insurgents--many of whom courageously helped our 
military during the Vietnam War--and their families emerged from the 
jungles in Laos only to be captured by the Lao military and mistreated, 
and as some allege, killed.
  The emerging Hmong-Lao were under the impression that there was an 
amnesty program organized by the Laotian government, but there was much 
confusion about this program. The Lao government has officially denied 
there was such a program, they have refused to provide our Government 
with any details of this mass surrender of ethnic Hmong and their 
families, and they would not accept humanitarian assistance for the 
sudden influx of people seeking assistance.
  In response to these reports, Senator Feingold and I, along with 
others, sent a letter to Ambassador Negroponte asking for his 
assistance in urging the United Nations to send a high level UN 
representative or fact finding mission to Laos to monitor the treatment 
of the Hmong. I also raised the issue with Secretary Powell when he 
came to testify before the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations 
Subcommittee. Secretary Powell expressed concerns about the reports 
coming out of Laos. He agreed that there is a need for greater access 
and that more needs to be done to secure the safety of the Hmong. And, 
while Laos hasn't exactly been on the front burner, this spring the 
Secretary raised the issue of the Hmong in Laos with UN Secretary 
General Kofi Annan, and he wrote to the Lao Foreign Minister to express 
concerns about the reports related to the supposed amnesty.
  It is my understanding that there has been no reply to Secretary 
Powell's letter.
  So, here we are today offering a carrot to a government that has 
essentially stonewalled our Secretary of State and has restricted 
access to independent international monitors, leaving us with no way to 
investigate the many reports coming from Laos.
  I am aware that there are supporters of Laos who have raised 
questions about the veracity of reports of human rights violations 
against the Hmong. Because of restrictions put in place by the Lao 
government that deny policymakers, journalists, and humanitarian groups 
access to the situation on the ground, it is very difficult to confirm 
these reports one way or the other. More significantly, it is virtually 
impossible to ensure that these individuals are being treated fairly 
and humanely. That is why it is essential for us to keep the pressure 
on the Lao government to push for international access. Such access 
would be crucial in determining the facts surrounding the treatment of 
the Hmong and would allow us to ensure that they are not being 
mistreated.
  The sad fate of the Hmong in Laos has been exacerbated by their role 
in helping the United States during the Vietnam war. By 1963, as many 
as 20,000 Hmong fighters were trained and armed by the Central 
Intelligence Agency to fight against the North Vietnamese Army and 
Pathet Lao forces as part of the so-called ``secret war in Laos.'' Some 
reports put the number of fighters as high as 40,000 in 1969. The Hmong 
sustained heavy casualties during those years, working in coordination 
with the CIA. The impact on the Hmong community extended beyond the 
actual fighters: Family members lived under terrible conditions, 
throughout this period, unable to farm because they were constantly 
moving to keep one step ahead of the Communists. Since they were never 
in one place long enough to harvest, they had to eat leaves, wild 
fruit, tree bark, and whatever else they could find in the jungle. The 
United States is indebted to these former Hmong insurgents who rescued 
downed American pilots and disrupted North Vietnamese supply lines--
under the most difficult circumstances. We cannot forget these 
courageous individuals and their families.
  In the years since the end of the Vietnam war, thousands of Hmong 
have fled to Thailand, living a life of separation from their homeland 
and ongoing transition. Hmong have come to the United States, 
resettling in California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and 
Rhode Island. My State of Wisconsin is the home to 33,000 former Hmong 
refugees, many of whom are concerned about the status of their family 
and friends in Laos. And, last December, the U.S. Government decided to 
admit 15,000 Hmong-Lao refugees who were living in Thailand. These 
refugees began to arrive in June and they will continue to arrive 
through the end of the year.
  Estimates are that there are as many as 17,000 Hmong still live in 
the jungles of Laos. According to the Associated Press, about 20 Hmong 
communities are currently involved in low level combat against the Lao 
communist government, which came to power in 1975 at the end of the 
Vietnam War. Most recently, there are reports that as many as two 
thousand Hmong have been under attack in remote regions of Laos by Lao 
forces using grenades, machine guns, and mortars. The scattered reports 
we receive are from those who manage to escape the area, those who call 
out on satellite phones, and the few reporters who venture onto the 
dangerous terrain.
  In October 2003, Amnesty International issued a report which stated 
that the Lao government is using starvation as a ``weapon of war 
against civilians''--a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, which 
Laos has ratified. The report indicated that the Lao military had 
surrounded several rebel groups and their families, including 
civilians, and was preventing them from foraging for food they need to 
survive. At that time, Amnesty stated that it was greatly concerned 
``by the sharply deteriorating situation of thousands of family members 
of ethnic minority groups, predominantly Hmong, involved in an armed 
conflict with the Lao military in jungle areas of the country.'' 
Articles in Time Asia in spring 2003 underscored these charges, stating 
that the Lao government had hunted down and surrounded ``this dwindling 
group of outcasts.'' The pictures accompanying this and other pieces in 
Time have shown the Hmong in the jungle living in deplorable 
conditions.
  Beyond its treatment of the Hmong, the Lao government also has a 
history of particularly severe violations of religious freedom which 
have been documented by the U.S. Commission on International Religious 
Freedom in a report submitted to Congress last March. The Commission 
has designated Laos as a ``country of particular concern'' and has said 
that ``U.S attention to Laos at this time may advance protections for 
religious freedom and promote U.S. interests.''
  I am sure that granting NTR was not the kind of attention the 
Commission had in mind.
  To quote from their report:

       . . . there has been extensive government interference with 
     and restrictions on all religious communities. In more recent 
     years, the government has focused its repression on religions 
     that are relatively new to Laos, including Protestant 
     Christianity . . . [Violations] include the arrest, prolonged 
     detention, and imprisonment of members of religious 
     minorities on account of their religious activities. . . . 
     Lao officials have forced Christians to renounce their faith 
     . . . dozens of churches have been closed.

  This persecution of religious minorities has extended to U.S. 
citizens as

[[Page 24141]]

well. In June of this year, the Laotian Government arrested, 
imprisoned, tried, convicted, and sentenced to 15 years in prison a 
Lutheran minister, a U.S. citizen, from St. Paul, MN. While in 
captivity, he was denied consular access for over a week and was 
subjected to a so-called trial before the Laotian judiciary system. 
Although he was released after a month, Laotian Christians have not 
been so lucky. Some Christian pastors say leaders have remained 
imprisoned for years. As long as there is no pressure on the Lao 
Government, we can expect the status quo to continue.
  With all due respect to my colleagues on the Finance Committee, I 
have to say they have been surprisingly eager to grant NTR status to 
Laos. They have been so focused on taking this step in the context of 
cleaning up our trade laws and eliminating the distinction between 
those nations which have NTR status and those that do not have NTR 
status that they have forgotten that this is not happening in a vacuum. 
Whether we intend to or not, we are sending a strong signal to the Lao 
Government, and that signal is that they can act with impunity.
  I recognize there is strong support for the miscellaneous tariff bill 
that has nothing to do with Laos NTR, and that many of my colleagues 
are not casting this vote with Laos in mind. For many years, I have 
worked with others, including my colleague, Senator Feingold, to shed 
more light on the condition of the Hmong in Laos and to assure their 
safety, and I did guarantee I will continue to do so.
  Madam President, I commend to my colleagues a report on the CIA Web 
site entitled ``Supporting the `Secret War': CIA Air Operations in 
Laos, 1955 to 1974.'' The report is by a historian at the University of 
Georgia.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a report from 
Time magazine of May 5, 2003, entitled ``Welcome to the Jungle,'' which 
details the deplorable conditions of the Hmong in the jungle in Laos. 
As one of the Hmong said, ``We shed blood with the U.S . . . they 
should remember us.'' Also, a report dated September 13, 2004, from 
Amnesty International entitled ``Laos: Military Atrocities Against 
Hmong Children Are War Crimes.'' Then a letter from the United States 
Commission on International Religious Freedom.
  And a letter dated March 15, 2004, to the U.S. Ambassador to the 
U.N., John Negroponte, signed by members of the Wisconsin, California, 
and Minnesota delegations.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From Time Magazine, May, 2003]

                         Welcome To The Jungle

                           (By Andrew Perrin)

       There were hundreds of them, perhaps a thousand. They wept 
     and knelt before me on the ground, crying, ``Please help us, 
     the communists are coming.'' I had hiked four days to reach 
     this forsaken place deep in the jungles of Xaysomboune, 
     northern Laos. The Hmong rebels prostrate before me were 
     convinced they would all soon die. They knew they were a 
     forgotten tribe, crushed by a military campaign that is 
     denied by the communist leaders of their small, sheltered 
     nation.
       In all my years as a journalist I had never seen anything 
     like this: a ragtag army with wailing families in tow, 
     beseeching me to take news of their plight to the outside 
     world. I walked among starving children, their tiny frames 
     scarred by mortar shrapnel. Young men, toting rifles and with 
     dull-eyed infants strapped to their backs, ripped open their 
     shirts to show me their wounds. An old man grabbed my hand 
     and guided it over the contours of shrapnel buried in his 
     gut. A teenage girl, no more than 15, whimpered at my feet, 
     pawed at my legs and cried, ``They've killed my husband. 
     They've killed my mother, my father, my brother . . .'' But 
     before she could finish, others were pushing her aside to sob 
     out their own litanies of loss. In this heart of darkness, 
     nobody has a monopoly on grief.
       Now, for the first time in nearly three decades, this 
     dwindling group of outcasts are completely surrounded by the 
     Lao government troops that hunt them. They are trapped in a 
     narrow swath of jungle, with all avenues of escape blocked by 
     either soldiers or antipersonnel mines. ``This time,'' says 
     Moua Toua Ther, 46, the one-armed leader of the camp and 
     commander of its pitifully equipped fighting force, ``we will 
     not be able to run or hide. When the helicopters come we will 
     be butchered like wild animals.''
       What is the crime this ragged bunch has committed? It is 
     simply that they are Hmong, mostly the children, 
     grandchildren or even great-grandchildren of fighters who in 
     the 1960s sided with the U.S. to fight communism in Laos 
     during the Vietnam War. Fabled for their resourcefulness and 
     valor, many Hmong became members of a secret CIA-backed 
     militia that helped rescue downed U.S. pilots and disrupted 
     North Vietnamese supplies and troop movements along the Ho 
     Chi Minh Trail through central Laos. The communist Pathet Lao 
     movement--and its patrons in Hanoi--has never forgotten the 
     Hmong's complicity with the Americans. Shortly after the 
     Pathet Lao took power in 1975--two years after the U.S. had 
     fled the country and left the Hmong soldiers to their fate--a 
     communist newspaper declared the Party would hunt down the 
     ``American collaborators'' and their families ``to the last 
     root.'' But until Time recently reached one of the last Hmong 
     outposts, no one truly believed that, after 28 years, the Lao 
     government still meant it. This, then, is the final act of a 
     war that, according to history books, ended in 1973.
       The Hmong, who migrated to Laos from southwestern China in 
     the 19th century, have always been a proud, warlike people. 
     In the 1920s a Hmong rebellion against their French rulers 
     erupted in much of Laos and northern Vietnam, ultimately 
     failing but leaving thousands dead. When the French left Laos 
     in 1953, the Hmong found themselves fighting again--this time 
     against the threat of communism. Among the resisters was a 
     young Hmong general named Vang Pao, who in 1961 was 
     commissioned by the CIA to set up a secret army to fight the 
     advancing communists. Over the next decade nearly half of the 
     40,000 Hmong fighters in Vang Pao's army are thought to have 
     perished during the fighting. The reward for their sacrifice? 
     The Paris cease-fire agreement of 1973, which signaled an end 
     of U.S. aid. Vang fought on for two more years, but when it 
     became clear that the Pathet Lao would win he fled to 
     Thailand and then to the U.S. Today, some 200,000 other Hmong 
     live in exile communities in the U.S. But not all Hmong made 
     it to America: 15,000 of Vang's brethren were cut off from 
     escape and were forced to melt away into the mountainous 
     jungles of Laos.
       Even from California, where he leads the United Lao 
     Liberation Front (ULLF), Vang, 74, casts a long shadow over 
     his people. Moua says he reports directly to Vang--a claim 
     the Californian denies, though he does admit to providing 
     occasional help. From his suburban American home, the exiled 
     general demands democracy and a reinstatement of the monarchy 
     in Laos. Moua and his militia are among the remnants of Hmong 
     rebel groups fighting for that disappearing dream.
       Moua joined Vang's secret army at age 15. His left arm ends 
     in a stump-his hand was removed in a 1974 jungle amputation. 
     One of only four people in the village with some writing 
     skills, he is a meticulous keeper of village statistics--
     there are 56 orphaned children, 40 widows and 11 widowers. By 
     Moua's count, 30% of the villagers have shrapnel wounds. In 
     1975, when Vang fled Laos, Moua recorded his group at 7,000 
     people. Today there are only about 800 left.
       Although the Hmong have been on the run for nearly three 
     decades, Moua and others in his village regard the past year 
     as the worst. In October, they say, some 500 ground troops 
     attacked them from four directions in Xaysomboune while a 
     gunship strafed them from above. In all, 216 Hmong were 
     killed. Such assaults can come at any time. Last August, a 
     mortar round landed less than a meter from nine-year-old Yeng 
     Houa's family dinner table, killing both his parents. Yeng 
     survived; but I count 18 shrapnel scars on his legs, his jaw 
     is broken and there is an infected sore on his inner thigh. 
     Since the attack, he has not spoken.
       The Hmong say they are too ill-equipped to strike back. 
     Most of their fighters are armed with ancient M-16s and AK-
     47s, and the heaviest weapons at their disposal are two 
     geriatric M-79 grenade launchers. Ammunition is mostly dug up 
     from former U.S. air bases. According to Moua, only a third 
     of the rounds are actually live, negating Hmong chances of 
     launching a viable offensive. As for the Lao government, 
     which declined to talk to Time, it denies allegations that it 
     is decimating Hmong rebels and blames them for much of the 
     unrest in the country. It insists that Hmong are doubling as 
     bandits. In February an ambush on a bus traveling the busy 
     Highway 13 in the north left 12 people dead, including two 
     Swiss cyclists. A calling card pinned to one of the corpses 
     indicated the deaths were the work of Hmong rebels. And on 
     April 20, gunmen opened fire on a passenger bus, killing at 
     least 13 people. Eyewitnesses to this massacre say the gunmen 
     spoke to one another in the Hmong language. Vang Pao angrily 
     denies claims that his men are responsible for attacks on 
     civilians. ``In the past there have been several events like 
     this that have taken place and been blamed on the ULLF,'' he 
     says. ``But it was not us. We believe it was organized by the 
     government using Hmong people who serve in the Lao army.'' 
     For his part, Moua portrays the Hmong as helpless innocents. 
     ``We only defend and run,'' he says. ``If the Lao troops 
     launch an assault, our ammo won't even last an hour.''
       Back in the mountains of Xaysomboune, Moua and his comrades 
     sleep uneasily on

[[Page 24142]]

     beds of leaves inside banana-leaf huts. Most cannot recall 
     how many times they've relocated, but they remember the 
     people they've lost Bhun Si, 42, says his wife and two sons 
     were taken from him last October. His friend Soum Sai saw 
     everything: the government troops came in, he says, and shot 
     women and children from a distance of just five meters. 
     Today, Bhun looks barely alive himself. Only two fingers 
     remain on his left hand--he lost the others in a B-41 rocket 
     attack that killed six of his fellow Hmong. His leg still 
     bleeds from a suppurating shrapnel wound he received 13 years 
     ago. One side of his face is a mask of melted flesh, with 
     black sockets where an ear and an eye should be. ``Everybody 
     is dead,'' he says. ``Sixteen people in my family are dead, 
     all killed by the communists.'' In a heartbreaking refrain I 
     heard repeatedly during my stay in the camp, he adds, 
     ``America must save us.''
       Commander Moua, too, wonders where his erstwhile American 
     allies have gone. ``We shed blood with the U.S.,'' he says. 
     ``They should remember this. They should find us a land where 
     we're safe and have food to eat.'' But as the world has 
     watched in awe of the might of the U.S. war machine in Iraq, 
     the final scenes of a 30-year-old war in Indochina that 
     America would rather forget are destined to play out 
     unnoticed.
                                  ____


              [From Amnesty International, Sept. 13, 2004]

    Laos: Military Atrocities Against Hmong Children Are War Crimes

       Amnesty International is horrified by recent reports, 
     including video evidence and witness testimony, of an attack 
     by Lao soldiers against a group of five children, four of 
     them girls, in the Xaisomboune military zone on 19 May 2004.
       The children, aged between 13 and 16 years old and part of 
     an ethnic Hmong rebel group, were brutally mutilated--the 
     girls apparently raped before being killed--by a group of 
     approximately 30-40 soldiers. The victims--four girls, Mao 
     Lee, 14; her sister Chao Lee, 16; Chi Her, 14; Pang Lor, 14; 
     and Tou Lor, Pang Lor's 15 year old brother--were killed 
     whilst foraging for food close to their camp. They were 
     unarmed.
       The attacks violate the most fundamental principles of 
     international human rights and humanitarian law. These rapes 
     and killings constitute war crimes. The Lao authorities must 
     bring to justice those responsible for this atrocity and 
     cease attacks on unarmed civilians.
       A witness, who has subsequently fled the country and been 
     recognized as a refugee by the United Nations High 
     Commissioner for Refugees, reported hearing one of the 
     soldiers saying: ``Meo (Hmong). Your kael ni (mouth) allows 
     you to speak. Your hin (vagina) allows you to breed''.
       He then heard moans and a gunshot.
       Mao Lee was shot in each breast and the other bodies were 
     mutilated by what appears to be high-powered rifle shots 
     fired at close range. One of the girls was disembowelled.
       Several other members of the group were seriously injured 
     with gun shot wounds but managed to return to their 
     encampment.
       The rebels have little if any medicine and rely on 
     traditional treatments using plants found in the forest.
       The Lao authorities must, as a matter of utmost urgency, 
     permit UN agencies and independent monitors unfettered access 
     to those rebels who are recently reported to have 
     `surrendered'. They must also permit humanitarian agencies to 
     provide medical and food assistance to those injured as a 
     result of this and other military actions against the rebels.


                               Background

       The Hmong ethnic minority group in Laos was allied to the 
     US during the Viet Nam war and its spill-over fighting in 
     both Laos and Cambodia. The Hmong people have a long history 
     of resistance and aspirations of independence from Lao 
     government control. Following the creation of the Lao 
     People's Democratic Republic in 1975 and the fall of the 
     former regime, as many as a third of the Hmong ethnic 
     minority are believed to have fled the country. Most of these 
     refugees resettled in the USA, but a large number spent many 
     years in refugee camps in Thailand.
       Sporadic military resistance to the government has 
     continued among some ethnic groups, predominantly Hmong. 
     There are also continuing allegations of serious human rights 
     abuses against those Hmong perceived as still being opposed 
     to the Lao government.
       There have been increasing concerns over the last two years 
     at an apparent increase in Lao government military activity 
     against rebel groups, who along with armed adult men also 
     comprise a large number of women, children, elderly and sick. 
     The upsurge in military activity followed increasing 
     international concern at the situation, which was triggered 
     by a number of journalists visiting rebel groups and 
     reporting their plight.
       Credible sources have reported the deaths of scores of 
     civilians, mainly children, from starvation and injuries 
     sustained during the conflict. It is known that several of 
     approximately 20 rebel groups with their families are 
     surrounded by Lao military and prevented from foraging for 
     food that they traditionally rely on to survive. Amnesty 
     International has protested to the Lao authorities at what it 
     believes is the use of starvation as a weapon of war against 
     civilians.
       Several hundred ethnic Hmong rebels are reported to have 
     `surrendered' to the Lao authorities in recent months. UN 
     agencies, diplomats and journalists have not been given 
     access to these people and Amnesty International has received 
     conflicting reports as to their reception and treatment by 
     the authorities.
       Amnesty International has also repeatedly condemned 
     indiscriminate attacks by armed opposition groups that have 
     reportedly killed and injured civilians in Laos. Amnesty 
     International unequivocally condemns these acts and has and 
     will continue to call upon the perpetrators to cease all 
     activities that are in violation of human rights and 
     international humanitarian law.
                                  ____

                                       United States Commission on


                              International Religious Freedom,

                                   Washington, DC, March 20, 2003.
     Senator Herb Kohl,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kohl: On behalf of the U.S. Commission on 
     International Religious Freedom, I am pleased to enclose the 
     Commission's 2003 report and policy recommendations on Laos. 
     The Commission is charged with reviewing the facts and 
     circumstances of violations of international religious 
     freedom. By law, a key function of the Commission is to 
     submit to the President, Secretary of State, and Congress its 
     findings and recommendations for U.S. policies with respect 
     to foreign governments engaging in or tolerating violations 
     of religious freedom.
       In its most recent report, the U.S. Commission on 
     International Religious Freedom determines that the 
     government of Laos has been engaged in particularly severe 
     violations of religious freedom, as defined in the 
     International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA). These 
     violations include the arrest, prolonged detention, and 
     imprisonment of members of religious minorities on account of 
     their religious activities.
       The Commission draws attention to abuses including arrests, 
     prolonged detention and imprisonment of members of minority 
     religions, forced renunciations of faith of Christians, and 
     extensive governmental interference with and restrictions on 
     all religious communities, including Evangelical Christians, 
     Roman Catholics, Baha'is and Buddhists. In July 2002, the Lao 
     government promulgated a new decree on religious affairs that 
     provides a legal basis for control of and interference with 
     religious activities by government officials.
       Lao officials perceive the United States to be influential 
     in the provision of international aid for Laos' development 
     and some have thus demonstrated a willingness to address U.S. 
     concerns, including human rights concerns raised by the 
     Commission, the State Department, and non-governmental 
     organizations. The United States has a unique opportunity to 
     engage the government and people of Laos in a process of 
     reform that would end the suppression of religious freedom 
     and other related human rights, and relatively small measures 
     of attention and assistance could accomplish a great deal.
       Therefore, the Commission makes the following 
     recommendations to the President, Secretary of State, and 
     Congress:
       1. President Bush should designate Laos as a ``country of 
     particular concern'' to make clear U.S. concerns over 
     particularly severe violations of religious freedom in Laos, 
     thus engaging the U.S. government in a process to promote 
     changes that would advance legal as well as practical 
     protections of freedom of religion and related human rights 
     in that country.
       2. The U.S. government should urge the government of Laos 
     to take specific steps to improve respect for religious 
     freedom, including the possible establishment of a bilateral 
     human rights dialogue that would also address the broader 
     range of human rights concerns such as torture and other 
     forms of ill-treatment.
       3. The U.S. government should provide assistance to Laos to 
     take genuine steps to reform its practices, policies, laws, 
     and regulations that contribute to religious freedom 
     violations.
       The report, as well as information about the Commission, 
     can be found on our Web site at www.useirf.gov. For further 
     information, please contact the Commission at (202) 523-3240.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Felice D. Gaer,
      Chair.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, March 15, 2004.
     Ambassador John D. Negroponte,
     U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, United States Mission 
         to the United Nations, New York, NY.
       Dear Ambassador Negroponte: We are writing to ask for your 
     assistance in urging the United Nations to send a UN 
     representative or fact-finding mission to Laos to monitor the 
     treatment of hundreds of Hmong-Lao, many of whom are former 
     insurgents and their families, who have recently emerged from 
     the jungles of Laos. A high-level UN presence is essential in 
     securing the safety of these individuals, as well as in 
     providing greater transparency regarding Lao governmental 
     actions to the international community.

[[Page 24143]]

       Over the past several weeks, hundreds of Hmong-Lao and 
     their families have left the jungles of Laos. Many of these 
     former insurgents fought with the Central Intelligence Agency 
     during the Vietnam War to rescue downed American pilots, to 
     thwart supply lines along the Ho Chi Minh trail and to hold 
     off North Vietnamese troops. When the Vietnam War ended and 
     the communist Pathet Lao took over the government, thousands 
     of Hmong were killed and sent to reeducation camps. Most 
     Hmong fled Laos or hid in the jungles of Laos, fearing for 
     their lives. Some estimate that as many as 17,000 Hmong have 
     been living in the jungles since 1975. The United States 
     remains indebted to these courageous individuals and their 
     families.
       The U.S. government claims that these individuals have 
     surrendered to the Lao government and are participating in an 
     unofficial and ``unstated'' amnesty program organized by the 
     government of Laos. Yet, our offices have heard contradictory 
     information. Reports indicate that the Laotian government 
     denies the existence of any amnesty program for these 
     individuals. In addition, many of our constituents claim that 
     these former insurgents have been captured by the Lao 
     military and did not surrender. Our constituents fear that 
     these people are in serious danger and allege that many have 
     already been killed, including women and children. Amnesty 
     International in a report on March 4, 2004 states, ``Amnesty 
     International has received conflicting reports as to their 
     [the Hmong's] reception and treatment by Lao authorities.''
       The restrictions imposed by the Lao government on 
     international access have prevented policymakers, journalists 
     and humanitarian groups from knowing the reality on the 
     ground and understanding the needs. The United Nations can 
     play a crucial role in shedding light on the situation. We 
     ask you, therefore, to urge the United Nations to send a UN 
     representative or fact-finding mission to ensure that these 
     former insurgents are treated humanely and that the Lao 
     government respects its obligations under international law.
       We thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
         Russ Feingold, U.S. Senator; Herb Kohl, U.S. Senator; 
           Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator; Mark Dayton, U.S. Senator; 
           Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator; Ron Kind, U.S. 
           Representative; Mark Green, U.S. Representative; Devin 
           Nunes, U.S. Representative; George Radanovich, U.S. 
           Representative; Dana Rohrabacher, U.S. Representative.

  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to efforts to push through a provision normalizing trade 
relations with Laos.
  First, let me thank my senior colleague, Senator Kohl. I enjoy 
working with him on so many issues, from our dairy industry in 
Wisconsin, to our excellent National Guard. But I am particularly proud 
he and I have been able to cooperate and work so hard with regard to 
the Hmong people living in Wisconsin and the concerns they have 
regarding issues not only concerning their own lives in Wisconsin but 
also the issues involving their families and their relatives in places 
such as Laos. I thank the Senator for all the work we have done 
together on this issue, and we will continue this battle to make sure 
there is accountability with regard to the human rights record of the 
Government of Laos, which is not a good record.
  It is for this reason I am deeply disappointed the decision was made 
to insert this provision in the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 2004 conference report. Let's again remember--and 
Senator Kohl pointed this out--so there is no misunderstanding, this 
bill would sail through the Senate if this provision on Laos was not 
included. Senator Kohl and I are not trying to block the larger 
legislation. However, I cannot support upgrading Laos's trading status 
as long as the human rights situation in that country remains so 
disturbing, and I am not prepared to let this bill pass without at 
least some further debate on this important matter.
  As Senator Kohl just said, this is the wrong time to reward the 
Government of Laos with normal trade relations. Reports emerging from 
Laos continue to demonstrate that human rights conditions in Laos 
remain appalling. Despite the Lao Government's denials, human rights 
organizations, the U.S. Government, my constituents, and various news 
agencies have all documented the Lao Government's blatant disregard for 
human rights.
  I have tried to carefully and closely monitor the human rights 
situation in Laos as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee's Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and as a 
representative of over 35,000 Hmong in Wisconsin, many of whom fled 
Laos following the end of the Vietnam war.
  Just like Senator Kohl, I am regularly contacted by constituents 
concerned about their friends and family in Laos. Again and again, my 
office encounters reports of atrocities committed against the Hmong in 
Laos and other deplorable practices by the Lao Government. These 
reports, combined with the Lao Government's absolute refusal to 
investigate allegations or to permit independent monitoring, lead me to 
believe it is not in our country's national interest to adopt normal 
trade relations with the Lao Government at this time.
  The State Department has documented these abuses through a series of 
reports, including their Human Rights Report, Trafficking in Persons 
Report, and Religious Freedom Report. In their Country Report for Human 
Rights Practices for 2003, the State Department reported the Lao 
Government's ``human rights record remained poor, and it continued to 
commit serious abuses.'' As described by the report, the abuse of 
detainees and prisoners, inhumane prison conditions, arbitrary arrests, 
detention and surveillance by police, a corrupt judiciary, and 
restrictions on freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and association 
are just some of the conditions that Laotians face.
  Trafficking in women and children for prostitution and forced labor 
in Laos is also a serious problem. The State Department's 2004 
Trafficking in Persons Report placed Laos in their tier 2 watchlist 
which they said reflected the ``lack of evidence of increasing Lao 
Government efforts to prosecute traffickers and to provide adequate 
protection for victims.'' It also stated that some local government 
officials ``likely profit from trafficking.''
  The State Department's International Religious Freedom Report for 
2004 describes restrictions on freedom of religion, stating that while 
the country's constitution allows for freedom of religion, the Lao 
Government actually ``restricts this right in practice.'' The report 
states that local officials were reported to pressure Christians to 
``renounce their faith on threat of arrest or forceful eviction from 
their villages. There were also several instances of persons detained 
or arrested for their religious faith.''
  The report goes on:

       The absence of rule of law has created an atmosphere in 
     which authorities may act with impunity against persons 
     regarded as threats to social order. Persons arrested for 
     their religious activities have been charged with exaggerated 
     security or other criminal offenses. Persons detained may be 
     held for lengthy periods without trial. Court judges, not 
     juries, decide guilt or innocence in court cases, and an 
     accused person's defense rights are limited. A person 
     arrested or convicted for religious offenses has little 
     protection under the law. All religious groups, including 
     Buddhists, practice their faith in an atmosphere in which 
     application of the law is arbitrary. Certain actions 
     interpreted by officials as threatening may bring harsh 
     punishment. Religious practice is ``free only if 
     practitioners stay within tacitly understood guidelines of 
     what is acceptable to the government and the LPRP . . .''

--The Lao Republic Revolutionary Party, the country's ruling party.
  A particular concern to my constituents and to me is the steady flow 
of reports of atrocities committed against the Hmong in Laos. My office 
is regularly bombarded with reports of murders, rape, and starvation of 
the Hmong in Laos. We cannot verify each of these claims, but the 
stream of videos, photographs, eyewitness reports, and articles is 
deeply disturbing. These allegations cannot be dismissed outright, as 
the Lao Government simply does again and again, denying the Hmong's 
very existence in the jungles of Laos. My constituents and the 
constituents of many Members of Congress care deeply about the well-
being of their friends and families.

[[Page 24144]]

  It is not just our constituents and Members of Congress who are 
concerned. Patricia Haslach, our U.S. Ambassador to Laos, stated in her 
nomination hearing on April 22, 2004, that her first priority was to 
press the Lao Government to respect the rights of ethnic groups, 
especially the Hmong population. The former Ambassador to Laos, 
Ambassador Douglas Hartwick, also made this a priority in his dealings 
with the Government of Laos and recognized the need for greater 
transparency and reform.
  As Senator Kohl pointed out, and as I reiterate, let us not forget 
the obligation the United States has to the Hmong. During the Vietnam 
War, the Central Intelligence Agency recruited, trained and armed 
approximately 60,000 Hmong to fight the Vietcong in a secret war. They 
fought with the CIA to rescue downed American pilots, to thwart supply 
lines along the Ho Chi Minh trail and to hold off North Vietnamese 
troops. Following the ascendancy of the communist Pathet Laos regime in 
1975 in Laos, the Lao government cracked down on its perceived 
political opponents, including the U.S.-trained Hmong guerilla 
fighters. Lao and Vietnamese troops crushed nearly all remnants of the 
Hmong army. Tens of thousands of Laotians, including the Hmong, died 
while attempting to flee the Lao communist regime, and many others 
perished in reeducation and labor camps. Hundreds of thousands of 
people fled to Thailand, and between 1975 and 1998, nearly 130,000 
Hmong refugees were admitted to the United States.
  The Hmong's relationship with the CIA was not acknowledged by the 
U.S. until 1994 when the former CIA Director William Colby told 
Congress of the Hmong's cooperation with the CIA. At that hearing, he 
stated that the Hmong contribution was ``substantial and at great 
sacrifice.'' He further stated:

       Many of the Hmong who bore the burden of that effort did so 
     in hopes of a better life for their families and children, 
     only to see them flee their homes in fear of their enemies to 
     become dependent refugees in foreign lands . . .

  The largest Hmong communities are now in Wisconsin, Minnesota, 
California and the State of the Presiding officer, North Carolina. 
There are approximately 280,000 Hmong nationwide. My State of Wisconsin 
is home to the third largest Hmong community in the United States, most 
of whom came to this country from Laos as refugees after the Vietnam 
War. I am proud of the Hmong veterans and their families who sacrificed 
so much during the Vietnam War.
  The Hmong people have made important contributions to Wisconsin and 
this Nation. They have brought new traditions and new perspectives, 
which have enriched the cultural life of my State and many others. I 
have consistently admired their passion and commitment to tackling a 
host of difficult issues confronting their community in the United 
States, Laos and in Thailand. They have endured tremendous hardship, 
even in the United States, as they have adjusted to an entirely new way 
of life here. I admire their strength and perseverance. In December 
2003, the United States Government announced the creation of a new 
resettlement program of approximately 15,000 Hmong-Lao, who were living 
at a temple named Wat Tham Krabok in Thailand. They have already begun 
to resettle in the United States, and some have come to Wisconsin, 
which has a proud tradition of welcoming refugee populations.
  However, while most fled Laos, it appears that remnants of former 
Hmong insurgent groups and their families, who once fought with the CIA 
and the Royal Lao government, remain in remote areas of Laos. The Lao 
leadership refuses to acknowledge that these groups exist. In a speech 
on January 27, 2004, then-U.S. Ambassador to Laos Hartwick stated that 
Laos needs to make progress in human rights and should find a 
humanitarian solution to the people still hiding in Laos' jungles. He 
actually stated:

       Remnants of former Hmong insurgent groups who once fought 
     on the side of the Royal Lao Government some 27 years ago, 
     still hide deep in the Lao forest, afraid or unwilling to 
     come out. The Lao leadership is unwilling to acknowledge 
     publicly that these groups exist, nor to explain in detail to 
     the international community the amnesty policy Laos has had 
     in place for years to encourage peaceful resettlement. Much 
     more needs to be done. Only improved cooperation and dialogue 
     among the Lao authorities, the forest people leaders, and 
     those outside of Lao borders who encourage this standoff can 
     resolve this tragic situation that continues to claim 
     innocent lives and fuel bilateral tensions . . . My 
     government and the international community stand ready to 
     assist in resolving this complicated issue if requested by 
     the concerned parties.

  An article in Time Asia from September 20, 2004 reiterated that 
thousands of Hmong ``remain trapped deep inside the mountains, playing 
a deadly game of cat and mouse with the government.
  Recently, my constituents have informed me that attacks have only 
escalated against the Hmong in the jungles by Laotian military forces. 
I want to highlight some of the examples of these disturbing reports.
  Amnesty International in October 2003 reported that the Lao 
Government was using ``starvation as a weapon of war.'' They reported 
that the Lao military had surrounded several rebel groups and their 
families and was preventing them from foraging for food they need to 
survive. Amnesty International stated that they were gravely concerned 
by the ``sharply deteriorating situation of thousands of family members 
of ethnic minority groups, predominantly Hmong, involved in an armed 
conflict with the Lao military in jungle areas of the country.''
  Following this report, I wrote a letter with other Senators to the 
Ambassador of Laos, bringing his attention to the Amnesty International 
report and asking the government to investigate the treatment of Hmong 
in the jungles of Laos, and to permit international monitors and 
humanitarian relief agencies to provide food and medical supplies. The 
Lao Ambassador dismissed the Amnesty report outright, and the Lao 
Government refused to investigate the claims.
  In a Time Asia article from May 5, 2003, journalist Andrew Perrin 
wrote of his journey to visit a group of Hmong deep within the jungles 
in northern Laos and spoke of the Hmong being hunted down and trapped 
by Lao military forces. He wrote this ``ragtag army with wailing 
families in tow'' was ``completely surrounded by the Lao government 
troops that hunt them.'' He goes on, ``What is the crime this ragged 
bunch has committed? It is simply that they are Hmong, mostly the 
children, grandchildren or even great-grandchildren of fighters who in 
the 1960s sided with the U.S. to fight communism in Laos during the 
Vietnam War . . . The communist Pathet Lao movement . . . has never 
forgotten the Hmong's complicity with the Americans.''
  In another article from Time Asia on June 30, 2003, Andrew Perrin 
again highlighted the plight of the Hmong, stating, ``In Laos, no 
political dissent has been allowed in 28 years, nor any right of 
assembly. Scores of political prisoners and youth have been detained 
for years in dark cells without trial; many have been tortured. 
Christians are persecuted, told to denounce their faith under threat of 
imprisonment'' and Hmong women and children are ``trapped in the 
mountains, starving, shot at and dying in droves.'' He continued, 
``Most of this brutality passes unnoticed or uncommented upon by 
Western governments, because Laos does not register on their radar.''
  Well, it registers on my radar and the radar of my constituents. 
However, it appears that this brutality has gone unnoticed by some 
members of Congress who wish to move forward on normal trade relations 
with Laos. Do these reports not give some of my colleagues any 
hesitation about granting normal trade relations to Laos at this time?
  Also in June 2003, in a highly publicized case, the Lao government 
arrested a Hmong-American and two European journalists for visiting 
Hmong in restricted areas of Laos. According to reports, they received 
a 15-year prison sentence following a two hour trial, demonstrating the 
flawed judicial process in Laos. After intense diplomatic pressure, 
they were released. According

[[Page 24145]]

to an AFP report, one of the journalists stated, ``Everything was 
decided in advance. It was a total mockery of justice, a parody . . . 
At one point we had black hoods on our heads and were handcuffed . . . 
They said we were carrying drugs and weapons, they were all lies.'' 
However, the Lao citizens apprehended with the three foreigners were 
not so lucky. They remain in jail, having been sentenced to between 12 
and 20 years. News reports indicated that they were tortured while in 
detention.
  Even the United Nations has been unsuccessful in getting answers from 
the Lao Government regarding human rights violations in Laos.
  In August 2003, the United Nations Committee to Eliminate Racial 
Discrimination strongly criticized the Lao People's Democratic Republic 
and expressed its grave concerns regarding reports of human rights 
violations, including brutalities inflicted on the Hmong. The committee 
``expressed its grave concern at the information it had received of 
serious and repeated human rights violations in that country; was 
extremely disturbed to learn that some members of the Hmong minority 
had been subjected to severe brutalities; deplored the measures taken 
by the Lao authorities to prevent the reporting of any information 
concerning the situation of the Hmong people . . .'' The committee 
``urged the state party to halt immediately acts of violence against 
the Hmong population.''
  In March 2004, an Amnesty International reported that large numbers 
of ethnic Hmong rebels and their families had emerged from jungles of 
Laos and surrendered to authorities in at least two areas of the 
country. The U.S. State Department confirmed these reports, believing 
that anywhere from 350 to 700 Hmong surrendered to Lao authorities and 
were participating in a Lao amnesty program. However, the Lao 
government has denied the existence of an amnesty program. Furthermore, 
some of my 26 constituents have raised fears that these Hmong did not 
actually surrender, but were captured and in some cases summarily 
executed. Several colleagues and I urged the administration to pursue 
increased international access to monitor this issue under United 
Nations auspices. In addition, we urged the State Department to 
investigate the allegations and gain access to the Hmong emerging from 
the jungles.
  Following these reports, in March 2004, I contacted the U.S. 
Ambassador to the UN with other members of Congress, asking for his 
assistance in urging the United Nations to send a representative or 
fact-finding 27 mission to Laos to monitor the treatment of the Hmong. 
In addition, I also wrote Secretary Powell with other members of 
Congress to investigate reports of atrocities and to take further 
action to protect the Hmong.
  In a letter of response, Ambassador Negroponte informed my office 
that both the Embassy and the United Nations Development Programme--
UNDP--continue to urge the Government of Laos to address this 
humanitarian issue in a peaceful and transparent manner, and have asked 
the Lao government to provide access to the areas where these people 
are seeking assistance.
  It seems that no access was granted. In addition, in my response to 
Secretary Powell's letter, the U.S. State Department informed me that 
they too shared our concern about the treatment of Hmong living in 
remote areas and that they were seeking access to these people in order 
to learn about their status firsthand. Furthermore, the State 
Department informed us that Secretary Powell wrote to Lao Foreign 
Minister Somsavat, requesting that the Lao government allow the U.S. 
embassy and UN or other international organization 29 personnel access 
to these groups. The Foreign Minister never wrote Powell back. The 
Foreign Minister never even responded to our Secretary of State at all. 
Now Congress wants to grant normal trade relations to Laos? Why would 
we reward the misbehavior and human rights abuses of this regime?
  Most recently, in September 2004, Amnesty International, CNN and 
other news sources reported on a recently released video, which 
documented the murder of five Hmong teenagers in Laos, allegedly by Lao 
military forces. Amnesty called these attacks war crimes. The children 
aged between 13 and 16, were murdered while foraging for food near 
their camp in Laos in May 2004. According to the reports, the 4 girls 
were raped prior to being killed. Not surprisingly, the Lao government 
initially dismissed the allegations, calling the tape a fabrication. 
After intense pressure by the United States State Department to launch 
an investigation, the Lao government stated that they undertook an 
investigation and were not able to find any evidence of a confrontation 
between the Lao military and these Hmong teenagers. But they have 
refused to make their report on the incident public.
  Mr. President, Michael Vang of California and Houa Ly of Wisconsin, 
two United States citizens, were last seen near the border between Laos 
and Thailand in April 1999. We do not know what fate they met in Laos. 
Joint U.S.-Lao investigations were unable to find them. The Lao 
government needs to make greater efforts at finding these two men.
  While we in Congress cannot verify every allegation, the information 
we receive from journalists, human rights organizations and our 
constituents is incredibly disturbing and cannot be disregarded. We 
just do not have enough information. But, the Lao government does not 
help us find the truth by restricting the international community from 
getting any more information.
  Despite all of the Lao government's stonewalling of our inquiries and 
the flood of reports of human rights violations by the Lao government, 
this Congress is now about to grant normal trade relations to Laos. Why 
now? Why do we choose to reward this oppressive and brutal government 
when they have not adequately responded to our concerns? When the 
Foreign Minister of Laos has not even responded to Secretary Powell's 
letter to his government, requesting more information? If these 
allegations are untrue, as they claim, then why does the Lao government 
not allow international monitors into the areas where the Hmong are 
living?
  But our concerns go unheeded, and we continue to be confronted with 
the most horrific accusations about conditions in Laos with no way to 
respond. We should not be giving Laos NTR, when they refuse to open to 
us in meaningful ways.
  The Lao government must assure the international community that they 
are attempting to address the problem of these men and women and 
children in the jungles of Laos through a humanitarian solution. The 
Lao government must allow international humanitarian organizations to 
have access to areas in which Hmong and other ethnic minorities have 
resettled, to allow independent monitoring of prison conditions, and to 
release prisoners who have been arbitrarily arrested because of their 
political or religious beliefs.
  The U.S. has an obligation to the Hmong people, and I strongly 
believe that we have a moral interest in reducing human suffering and 
protecting human rights abroad. We cannot ignore these allegations of 
atrocities in Laos. Granting NTR is not appropriate at this time. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in insisting that the conference report 
before us not be used as a Trojan horse to sneak through a provision 
that conflicts so fundamentally with our country's dedication to human 
rights, to democracy, and to fundamental decency.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
proceed as in morning business for 30 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I certainly will not 
object,

[[Page 24146]]

and I look forward to hearing the remarks of my colleague, the Senator 
from Oklahoma, whom I have enjoyed serving with very much, especially 
on the Budget Committee, and simply indicate to the Senate that I 
intend after this to get back to the business of debating the pending 
issue. But with that, I do not object.
  Again, I commend the Senator on his wonderful service to this body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Farewell

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague for his 
consideration.
  My wife and I, our families, were taking our Christmas photo a few 
days ago and I was surprised to realize that our two oldest children 
were actually older than we were when we came to the Senate. They are 
in their thirties and I think I was 32 when I was sworn in, just turned 
32, and now we have a couple of children who are that age or more. It 
tells me we have been here a little while. I am actually very surprised 
that I am concluding 24 years in the Senate.
  I have absolutely loved working in the Senate. The Senate is a great 
institution. It is one of the true pillars of democracy in the world, 
one which people look to with great respect and admiration. I have 
always been proud to be called a Senator and I have always been proud 
to represent my State and my country. To me, it represents a shining 
city on a hill, and a true beacon of democracy for the free world which 
has stood for more than two hundred years.
  My first time to visit the Senate and sit in the gallery was in 1974 
and I was coming to Congress as a businessman to give my impressions on 
a bill that was pending before Congress. The bill was called ERISA, 
Employment Retirement Income Security Act. I ran a small business in 
Ponca City, OK, and I thought the better title for the bill was ``Every 
Ridiculous Idea Since Adam.''
  But that was in 1974. I happened to be here, it was a coincidence at 
the time, and Senator McConnell will appreciate this, being a political 
historian, it was a time when an election was contested and it happened 
to be the Senate election of Oklahoma. Henry Bellman, was reelected by 
a very close margin over Congressman Edmondson. As all of our 
colleagues know, the Senate is the final arbiter in contested elections 
and it was being contested on the floor of the Senate the time I was 
here.
  Senator Domenici remembers that. It was a very contested, spirited 
debate.
  I was quite taken by the debate. I sat in the gallery for hours. I 
remember Senator Allen, a Democrat. The Democrats controlled the Senate 
at that time. Henry Bellman was a Republican. He won by a very narrow 
margin--I can't remember what it was, a couple thousand votes. There 
were disputes on election-counting machines. That sounds kind of 
familiar. It was a great debate. I remember Senator Allen spoke on 
Senator Bellman's behalf, and then they had the rollcall vote and 
enough Democrats voted with Senator Bellman, and that was the end of 
it.
  I happened to ride back on the plane that day, and guess what. I was 
riding with Senator Bellman and Congressman Edmondson. They were 
friends and they were shaking hands. I was impressed. And I was 
impressed with this body. I was impressed with the Senate. I was 
impressed with the Senators. I was impressed with the conduct of the 
debate. I was impressed with the fact that almost all Senators were 
here during the debate.
  It was such a special occasion. I was so pleased because Henry 
Bellman was reelected and affirmed by the Senate because I also 
considered him a mentor and a leader in Oklahoma. He was the first 
Republican Senator elected in our State in a long time and now he was 
reelected. Senator Domenici served with him on the Budget Committee. He 
was the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, on the formation of 
the Budget Committee in 1974. I served with Ed Muskie and he did a 
wonderful job in that capacity.
  That was my first, personal impression of the Senate. My impression 
of the Senate was very good then and it has been very good ever since. 
I have absolutely had the greatest respect for this institution and for 
this body. This body is composed of great Members.
  I remember the time coming into the Senate when I was elected. It was 
1980. That was a big election year. We have had a few big election 
years in my time, but I'm not sure we have ever had one quite as big, 
as dramatic a change as we did in 1980. There were 18 new Senators 
elected in 1980, and 16 of the 18 were Republicans. The majority leader 
became Howard Baker from Tennessee. He was nice enough to be my mentor, 
and I thought the world of him then as I still do today. He is a 
wonderful Ambassador to Japan, and he and Nancy Kassenbaum were 
wonderful Senators. It was a great time to serve in the Senate.
  I remember the highlight of my Senate career was on Ronald Reagan's 
inaugural day on January 20, 1981. It was a beautiful day, and I 
remember the hostages in Iran were released that very day. They were 
held hostage for 444 days. They were liberated on that inaugural day. I 
will never forget what a euphoric feeling it was for not just those of 
us who were elected to the Senate and taking control--the Republicans 
were taking control of the Senate for the first time in decades. I 
think none of those Republicans had ever been in the majority, and I 
don't believe any of those Democrats had ever been in the minority.
  That was a big change. It was kind of a fun change from my vantage 
point. There was so many new people. I was one of 18 new Senators, and 
it was a great time. That was a big turnover any time in this 
institution. To think that the hostages were released and Ronald Reagan 
was elected--it was a big exciting time, and a lot was accomplished.
  I was coming to Congress as a businessman from Ponca City, OK, with 
an agenda. Part of the agenda was not to be here forever. Frankly, I 
told people I was running because I thought our country had declined 
far too much militarily, economically, and morally, and I wanted to do 
something about it.
  I came here to cut taxes and to cut regulations, particularly in the 
energy industry, and to see if we couldn't make positive changes for 
the country. Economic issues aside, I wanted to defeat the Communists. 
This was of particular concern to me, as I thought our country had 
declined way too much militarily.
  We did a lot of those things. We accomplished a lot in the 1980s 
under Ronald Reagan's leadership. I am absolutely amazed when I look 
back at when Ronald Reagan was elected, and when I was elected. The 
maximum tax rate was 70 percent, and 8 years later it was 28 percent. I 
am still amazed at that. What an unbelievable accomplishment. I 
remember how it was accomplished. It took a lot of strong leadership 
and work by Howard Baker and Bob Dole. It took working with other 
people. I remember Bill Bradley working on some of these tax bills. 
That was a big change.
  I came from a business background and, oh, yes, if you made some 
money, you can be taxed all the way to 70 percent on the individual 
side, and 80 percent on the corporate side. You were working more for 
the Government than you were yourself. To me, that represented a real 
loss of personal and economic freedom. I wanted to restore economic 
freedom for all Americans and be part of that change.
  My father, unfortunately, died in 1961. We had a small family-held 
business. The Government contested, basically, my mother and our family 
for 7 years over the value of Nickles Machine Corporation. They wanted 
a big chunk of that business. I always resented that. I thought 
Government was supposed to protect private property; not confiscate it.
  On the 1981 tax bill, I remember talking to Secretary Don Regan when 
I said: We really should eliminate the estate tax on surviving 
spouses--and we made sure that was included in the 1981 tax bill. I am 
probably as proud of that as any other thing. I had a little something 
to do with a very profamily, very

[[Page 24147]]

probusiness, very progrowth-oriented bill becoming law. That success 
told me that we could accomplish great things here.
  Of the 18 Senators who were elected with me in 1980, there are only 3 
left. Chris Dodd is still here, Chuck Grassley is now chairman of the 
Finance Committee, and Arlen Specter will be chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee. Only 3 of the 18 are left.
  I respect them greatly, and I compliment them for their many years of 
service.
  Over the years, I've had many great mentors. I mentioned Bob Dole and 
Howard Baker. I'll mention one other one with fond affection. That 
would be Senator Jesse Helms. I remember one time when we were engaged 
in a filibuster, and I encouraged the Senate not to have many 
filibusters, but that is the first one I can remember. I believe it was 
1982 or 1983. Eric Ueland knows more about Senate history than all of 
us combined. This was a little filibuster on the Nickles gasoline tax. 
Some of us believed that the States should do it rather than the 
Federal Government. Three of us were opposed to that: Senator Helms, 
Senator East, and myself. That was when the filibuster was a real 
filibuster. We spent the night on cots outside the Senate Chamber.
  I remember laying awake at night somewhat nervous. The heart was 
still beating, and I remember some grumbling amongst some of our 
colleagues who weren't very happy about the fact that we were here in 
late December arguing over a Nickles gasoline tax. I remember that this 
wasn't quite worth falling on the sword over.
  I communicated that to my friends and colleagues, Senator Helms and 
Senator East. I eventually convinced Senator Helms, and it took a 
little longer to convince Senator East, and we dropped the filibuster.
  What I wanted to say about Senator Helms is I remember that we had a 
lot of discussions during these times. We were actually in session two 
or three nights around the clock. He told me something I will never 
forget, which I will pass along to our colleagues.
  He said: Don, when I am flying over North Carolina and I look around 
and see all those lights, I am amazed at how many people live in that 
State and how many people there are, particularly in rural areas. And I 
wonder if those people think they have anybody in DC who really cares 
about them, and probably most of them don't think anybody cares about 
them. He was just as genuine as he could possibly be.
  When I am on a plane at night looking out at the lights and see how 
big our cities, towns, and rural areas are, I think about that. Do the 
people in those areas really think somebody is fighting for them, 
working for them? Jesse Helms is one of those individuals. He is very 
special. He had a reputation of being kind of tough and mean, but 
personally he is probably one of the nicest Senators with whom I have 
had the pleasure of working. He knew everybody who worked the 
elevators. He was nice to the staff. He was a gentleman's gentleman. I 
understand his health is not real good right now, so my thoughts are 
with him, and I wish him all the best at this time. He was a great 
Senator. He knew the rules of the Senate, and he would fight for what 
he believed in, and he would fight with tenacity. He also was a 
Senator's Senator, and I'm am fortunate to say I have had the pleasure 
of serving with many colleagues who fall into that category.
  I came here with a real interest in trying to change things in the 
energy field. I served on the Energy Committee, but I wanted to make 
some changes. I ran and maybe was elected in large part because of some 
of the things that Congress was passing in 1978 and 1979 and 1980 with 
which I just totally disagreed. One of those was the windfall profits 
tax. I campaigned vigorously against it. I wanted to repeal it. I was 
disappointed that I couldn't get it repealed in 1981, or in 1982. I 
introduced legislation every single year. We finally got it repealed in 
1986.
  As I told somebody last night, it was $77 billion too late. But 
eventually it was repealed.
  We did some other things that I think were very positive--undoing 
some of the things that were passed in the last couple of years of the 
Carter administration.
  We deregulated natural gas. I did that working with Wendell Ford and 
Bennett Johnston on the Energy bill. That was very positive, 
significant legislation that one of my predecessors, Bob Kerr, had 
worked on 20 years before. We got that done.
  We repealed the fuel use tax. We eliminated the Synfuels Corporation. 
The Synfuels Corporation was run by an Oklahoman who ran against me, Ed 
Nobel. He ran against me in 1980. Ronald Reagan appointed him chairman 
of the Synfuels Corporation. I campaigned to eliminate it, which we 
eventually did.
  I have had a lot of fun in this capacity. In the mid-1980s, I was 
appointed to the Appropriations Committee. I have great, fond memories 
of that. The Democrat leader, Harry Reid, was my colleague on two or 
three committees. I think we both were either chairman or ranking, and 
we switched back and forth a couple of times on the District of 
Columbia Appropriations Committee, our penance, and the Interior 
subcommittee, which either Senator Reid or Senator Byrd was chairman 
and/or ranking members. We worked together on those committees for 
years.
  We did a lot of good things together, such as reforming the frank so 
you couldn't mail out thousands and thousands of pieces of mail, 
particularly prior to election time.
  Harry Reid is my friend and his word is as good as gold. He will be a 
good leader for the Democrats, and he will be a good Senator for 
Senator Frist and Senator McConnell to work with to get things 
accomplished. So I am excited about his elevation.
  I was selected by our colleagues to be campaign chairman back in 1989 
and 1990, one of the tougher jobs. I compliment George Allen for the 
fine job he did this year. I compliment Bill Frist for the fine job he 
did in that position, and Mitch McConnell when he had that position. It 
is probably one of the toughest elected positions we have in 
leadership, but one which I thoroughly enjoyed. The reason I enjoyed it 
is you work hard, and you get to know your colleagues. We get so busy 
around this place we often don't get to know our colleagues. If you are 
campaigning with somebody, if you are spending the night, as I did at 
Gordon Smith's home in Oregon, or campaigning in Maine with Senator 
Snowe or Senator Collins, or if you are campaigning in Minnesota, or 
when you campaign with people and you are traveling with them for a day 
or two, or in Montana on a bus tour with Conrad Burns and his wife 
Phyllis, you get to know them.
  I have gotten to know our colleagues well. I think I have been in 
almost everybody's State, at least on our side of the aisle, 
campaigning. I thoroughly enjoyed getting to know my colleagues. The 
Senate is composed of a great group of individuals, Democrats and 
Republicans, and we need to get to know each other better. I think if 
we get to know each other better, our body works better and we will do 
better.
  After that, I was fortunate enough to be elected policy chairman. I 
had that position for 6 years, and it was another job I absolutely 
loved. I succeeded Bill Armstrong, and I was fortunate to keep some of 
his staff, some of the best staff on the Hill, I might add. They stayed 
with me, and I appreciate that. Eric Ueland and Doug Badger would fit 
in that category, and they were outstanding.
  Bill Armstrong is another one of my mentors. I met with Bill 
Armstrong and a couple of other Senators in a prayer group once a week 
for 12 years. He is probably the most articulate Senator I have had the 
pleasure of serving with, an outstanding leader. I wish he would have 
continued his service. He decided to return to the private sector, and 
since I am doing that, I respect that greatly. But I have always looked 
up to him because he was a man of conviction, and he got things done.
  Let me add, Jon Kyl who is now the policy chairman, and there could 
not be a better policy chairman, is doing a fantastic job, a very 
important job. I compliment him for his leadership.

[[Page 24148]]

  After that position--and I thank my colleagues for giving me that 
responsibility--I served 6 years as assistant majority leader, and I 
guess at some point maybe assistant minority leader. It was a great 
honor and a pleasure to work with Trent Lott, which I enjoyed greatly. 
Trent did a fantastic job as our Republican leader, and I'd like to 
take this opportunity to commend him on his outstanding service. Mitch 
McConnell has my old post now, and he is doing a super job. Again, it 
is a position where you get to know your colleagues really well. You 
not only learn how to count votes, but you find out what makes people 
tick and where they are coming from, what they are trying to 
accomplish, and what they are trying to do. And Mitch McConnell is 
doing a fantastic job in that capacity.
  During my tenure in the Senate, we have had the pleasure of passing a 
lot of legislation. I am fortunate to have so many colleagues who have 
helped me do some things that I think have become good laws.
  The Republicans took control of the Senate in the 1994 elections, and 
in 1995 I think the first bill we passed was the Congressional 
Accountability Act that Senator Grassley and a lot of Democrats and 
Republicans passed. We worked hard on that. I am glad to see that 
happened.
  We passed the Congressional Review Act that Senator Reid was my 
principal Democrat sponsor on, where we could review expensive and 
expansive Federal regulations. We actually used that to repeal the 
ergonomics rule which the Clinton administration tried to pass in the 
last couple of days of their term. Although he supported the 
regulation, Senator Reid, to his credit, defended the Congressional 
Review Act which is still the law of the land. We used that to repeal 
what I felt was a very intrusive, expensive, and unwarranted 
regulation. Again, that is another case where Senator Reid stated--he 
did not agree with repealing the regulation, but he defended the law we 
repealed it with, and some people were trying to undermine that.
  Senator Lieberman and I passed the Defense of Marriage Act, an act 
that became a little more noteworthy in the last year or two. I thank 
Senator Lieberman for his help and leadership on that issue. Bill 
Clinton signed that bill. I am not sure he wanted to, but he did sign 
it in the wee hours of 1996. That act is still the law of the land. It 
basically says States do not have to recognize other States' 
legalization of same sex marriage. Some States have legalized gay 
marriage, which is their prerogative, but due to our bill other States 
do not have to recognize that. Some people presume that it will be 
declared unconstitutional. I hope it is not. I would be disappointed if 
the Supreme Court did overrule that. That bill passed with 80-some-odd 
votes in the Senate and still is the law of the land.
  We passed the International Religious Freedom Act. Again, I say 
``we.'' Senator Lieberman joined me in passing that bill. We passed 
that in 1998, and it is now the law of the land. It is very important 
that we note countries that are very repressive and oppressive in 
stifling religious freedom. Unfortunately, we have seen such oppression 
in many countries around the world. That kind of bigotry is the genesis 
of a lot of the hatred and violence and the wars we are fighting today.
  We have ensured, with the passage of this act, that the State 
Department will be much more proactive in not only identifying cases of 
religious intolerance and persecution, but will take proactive steps to 
change such behavior as a matter of U.S. policy.
  Senator Landrieu and I passed, in 2000, the Child Citizenship Act, 
which basically grants citizenship to foreign born children who are 
adopted. I think 150,000 children became citizens in one day as a 
result of that act, and I am greatly pleased to have been a part of 
that success.
  I have had the pleasure for the last couple of years of being 
chairman of the Budget Committee. I look back at some of our 
accomplishments, and I have to think maybe those were some of the best 
in my career as a Senator.
  The budget we passed in 2003 was a real challenge. We probably spent 
more days, more hours, and had more votes on the 2003 Budget Act than 
any other Budget Act in history. I think we had 80-some-odd votes. It 
took more than a week. It took about a week and a half, almost 2 weeks, 
on the floor.
  I compliment Senator Zell Miller for his assistance in that. We 
passed that budget with the Vice President breaking the tie. That was 
not easily done. We defeated numerous amendments, and were successful 
in passing a budget that allowed us to have the opportunity to have an 
economic growth package. President Bush was nice enough to ask me to 
introduce the package and to try to carry it, and we did. Again, Zell 
Miller was the principal cosponsor with me of the bill, the growth 
package. We introduced that package in January of 2003. We passed it in 
June of 2003.
  When we first took up that legislation, the Dow Jones was at about 
7,700. Today, the Dow Jones is over 10,500. We wanted to pass that 
package so we could stimulate the economy because it was, at that time, 
pretty anemic. Government receipts were still down. We wanted to get 
something to grow the economy. We passed that package, and not only did 
the stock market go up, receipts are up, and we have created a couple 
million jobs since then.
  We accelerated the tax cuts that were slowly being phased in from the 
2001 tax bill. So now we have a maximum rate of 35 percent. Although 
some people say that is too much of a giveaway, it is the same rate the 
corporations pay, and I do not think individuals or self-employed 
people should pay a higher rate than Exxon or General Motors. So we 
passed that.
  We also passed a 15-percent tax on capital gains and a 15-percent tax 
on corporate distributions, dividends, which I firmly believe has 
greatly helped not just the market but the economy. So I am proud of 
that.
  I am proud of Zell Miller because he had the courage to be a 
cosponsor, to stand up and fight for those things and make them become 
law. It also made a $1,000 tax credit per child become law. It also 
eliminated or greatly reduced the marriage penalty on married couples. 
If they have taxable income of $58,000, that is $900 of tax relief. 
Those are positive things. It would not have happened without Zell 
Miller.
  Zell Miller only served 4 years in the Senate. He replaced a very 
dear friend of all of ours, Paul Coverdell. I mourned Paul Coverdell's 
loss, and I stated at the time he cannot be replaced; and he certainly 
cannot be replaced. But Zell Miller has been one outstanding addition 
to this body. He is a great patriot, not a great Democrat or a great 
Republican, he is a great patriot, and he stands for what he believes 
in, and he helped us enact these measures which are vitally important.
  I also read in the Washington Post today that somebody said, well, 
the Budget Act is not working, and so on, and there is no discipline in 
Congress. Frankly, they don't know what they are talking about. I hate 
to tell them that.
  They also said we did not pass a budget this year. Well, they don't 
quite know what they are talking about there either. In the last 2 
years, thanks to the collective will of this body, we have made 82 
budget points of order--in the last 2 years--78 of which were 
sustained. I voted to waive a couple of them. We defeated $1.7 trillion 
of additional spending over a 10-year period on those 78 budget points 
of order.
  The Budget Act did work. We passed a budget through the Senate 
earlier this year that had domestic discretionary spending at $821.9 
billion.
  I am confident that when the leader brings up an Omnibus bill this 
year, it is going to meet that goal of $821.9 billion. That is several 
billion dollars less than a lot of people wanted.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Stevens. I have wrestled with him every 
day on appropriations bills. But Senator Stevens helped us pass the 
821.9 cap on the DOD Appropriations bill. I could not get the budget 
resolution to pass. We passed it through the Senate and through the 
House. I could not get

[[Page 24149]]

the conference report adopted. That was one of my disappointments.
  One of our accomplishments, as most people didn't know, was we did 
put in the spending cap on the DOD Appropriations bill and we are 
enforcing that cap and we are abiding by that cap today. So I wanted 
people to know that. I also thank people such as Thad Cochran and 
Senator Specter, because they enforced the cap as chairmen of their 
respective Appropriations subcommittees, probably more than anyone. I 
didn't have to make the points of order; they did it. It worked. We 
have nondiscretionary and nonhomeland security growing at less than 1 
percent this year, compared to a 14-percent growth a few years ago in 
President Clinton's last years. Yes, we are spending a lot of money in 
defense and homeland security, no doubt about it.
  Are the deficits too high? You bet. Are they coming down? You bet. 
The deficit this year was finalized at 400-something, over $100 billion 
less than the administration projected 9 months ago; and that is 
because revenues are up and the economy is growing. The changes we 
passed in 2001 are working significantly.
  I project, and CBO projects, they will continue to climb by another 
$100 billion in the next year or so. Is the war expensive? Yes. Is it 
worth it? You bet. Is the war on terrorism worth it? Yes.
  Earlier this year--I would say this was a real highlight--I went to 
Iraq and Afghanistan with Senators Sessions and Lieberman. I have done 
a lot of things, and I have been to a lot of places around the world, 
but I cannot tell you how proud I was to be in Iraq, basically when 
there was a transition of power, when Mr. Allawi assumed control of 
Iraq.
  We met with the Defense Minister and he said: Yes, we want to protect 
our country. When we met with our military leadership and theirs, we 
were in the process of training 210,000 Iraqis, and we had a chance to 
meet with Iraqis there that are hungry for freedom and thankful for our 
support and eager to assume and take control.
  They are talking about elections in January, and I am hopeful and 
prayerful that those will be successful. I believe they will be. 
Senator Sessions and I also went to Afghanistan and met with now-
President Karzai. It was around July 4. They were scheduled to have 
elections in October. They did that and he was elected overwhelmingly.
  The success we have had in Afghanistan has been absolutely 
phenomenal. I remember well the debates here, with many people saying: 
You are going to be involved in a quagmire; you will never be able to 
have democracy. You cannot get in there. The Soviets were there 10 
years and lost tens of thousands of troops. You are going to do the 
same thing.
  Frankly, our military was successful, working with the Afghan 
northern alliance and other Afghan people who wanted freedom in 
Afghanistan. We basically helped them take control of that country with 
a few hundred troops on the ground and our Air Force. We have liberated 
Afghanistan. They have had elections and they have proved they can have 
a democracy. They will have parliamentary elections early next year.
  So the success we have had and have seen in Afghanistan is restoring 
freedom to millions of people there. I believe we are in the process of 
restoring freedom and liberating the Iraqi people for the long run so 
the Iraqis can control their own destiny. If you look at those things, 
we have had an outburst, an outgrowth of freedom.
  Abraham Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address:

       This Nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom.

  This country is largely responsible for not only this country having 
a new birth of freedom, but frankly countries throughout the world, in 
our own hemisphere and in the former Soviet bloc, and now even in 
places as remote as Afghanistan and Iraq. To have been able to play a 
small part in that over these last 24 years has been a real pleasure.
  I thank my constituents, the people of Oklahoma, for giving me the 
opportunity and the privilege to serve them for the last 24 years. I 
thank my family, and especially my wife for her tolerance in allowing 
me to do this for the last 24 years. I thank my colleagues who I have 
had the pleasure of serving with and working with and the pleasure of 
knowing. Frankly, my best friends are my colleagues. I have spent a 
long time here and I have absolutely loved this work. I love the 
Senate.
  I think the Senate is in very good hands. My replacement is Dr. Tom 
Coburn. I am honored that an active physician would leave his career 
and serve in the Senate. We have not seen it often. We saw it with Dr. 
Bill Frist, and I am so grateful that he set aside his career as a 
talented physician to serve in the Senate. I am delighted he is the 
majority leader. He has done a fantastic job. I am delighted Dr. Coburn 
has left his profession to serve in the Senate. What a great addition 
to the Senate. I have had the pleasure of working with Jim Inhofe, and 
I see Jim and Tom Coburn doing an outstanding job in representing our 
State.
  I look at the leadership in the Senate today with Bill Frist, Mitch 
McConnell, John Kyl, and the rest of the team on this side, and with 
Harry Reid and others on the Democrat side, and I see good things ahead 
for the Senate, positive things.
  I have been so fortunate also to have what I have often said are the 
best staff on the Hill. I have truly been blessed. I have many staff 
members who have been with me for a long time.
  Looking to my left is Bret Bernhardt, my chief of staff, who has 
worked with me for over 20 years. Hazen Marshall came in as an intern 
many, many years ago, and he is now chief of staff on the Budget 
Committee. Nobody knows the budget or taxes any better than Hazen 
Marshall. Both of these men are true professionals.
  I have so many people to thank. I cannot go down the whole list. I 
will recognize some who have been with me for over 20 years. In my 
Oklahoma City office, there is Joey Bradford, who worked for me going 
back to Nickles Machine Corporation in 1978 to 1979. She is still with 
me. She will be the last person to turn out the lights. She is a 
wonderful person. Jo Stansberry goes way back. She was my secretary 
when I was a State senator in 1978, bless her heart. She is the 
sweetest person you will ever know. She is still with me today. Also, 
in my Oklahoma City office, Judy Albro and Maurie Cole have been with 
me almost the entire time. Sharon Keasler has been running my Tulsa 
office for over 20 years.
  In my DC office, Zev Teichman and Cynthia Singleton have been with me 
the entire time.
  They are wonderful people and true public servants, all of whom could 
have done much better financially on the private side, but they have 
stayed with us on the public side, as well as many others.
  I look at our staff and we still have most of the staff still with 
us. I am grateful for that. They are all anxious about new careers, and 
they have been generous with their time and very loyal in their 
support, not just to me but to the people of Oklahoma and to this 
institution called the Senate. The Senate is a very special place.
  I also would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge two or three other 
people who have had a profound and positive impact on my life. One is 
Doug Coe. Some of our colleagues know him very well. Doug Coe was a 
friend, brother, and mentor whom I respect and love greatly. He is also 
a golfer, and that is my favorite vice, I guess. Most golfers play for 
a little money. Doug would say, ``I will play you for a Bible verse.'' 
We would do it and, of course, I would lose--predestined from on high. 
I will never forget when Doug said here is a verse for you to memorize. 
It was, I think, John 13:34: ``A new commandment I give to you, that 
you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one 
another.'' He made me learn that. I learned it in, I think, about 1981 
or something. He has been a very positive guiding light. I have tried 
to keep that commandment in my heart when I am on this floor and 
conducting my business, and it is good advice. I wanted to thank him.
  Also, I will mention a couple other people. One is Dick Halverson, 
the first Senate Chaplain with whom I had the

[[Page 24150]]

pleasure working. He was maybe one of the most Christlike persons I 
have ever known. Lloyd Ogilvie, who succeeded him, was a great mentor. 
He led many of us in our Bible studies for years. He is a wonderful, 
wonderful brother and friend. And now Barry Black. Barry Black, when he 
was giving the prayer today, said we may seek to accomplish causes 
beyond our lifetime. And he is so right. That is what the Senate is 
about. It is about causes. It is about things that can have 
consequences, that can have real meaning beyond our lifetime eternally.
  So I thank God for the opportunity and the privilege and the pleasure 
to serve in this great body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________