Pete King

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute a young constituent of mine, Manoj ``Manny'' Illickal, who is working toward his college degree with the assistance of the Gateway Job Corps. Manny recently took first place honors in the Joint Action in Community Service, Inc. [JACS] National Essay Contest. I offer for inclusion in the Record, Manny's award-winning essay, ``How Job Corps Changed My Life.'' It's an inspiring story of how he learned self-discipline and the value of hard, honest work. After reading this essay, I am certain that you'll agree with me that Manny's future is limited only by how far he wants to take himself. He seems to have the right attitude for success. How Job Corps Changed My Life (By Manny Illickal) While my classmates were cleaning other parts of the workshop, I was spending my Friday afternoon mopping the office of my instructor; that is, I was supposed to be mopping his office. What I was actually doing was trying to figure out how best to get out of Building and Apartment Maintenance, out of Gateway Civilian Conservation Center and (most importantly) out of the U.S. Job Corps. I was a really smart kid when it came to quitting things, probably because I had a lot of practice. After the student-foreman had told me to mop the office I asked, ``Don't you have someone who does that type of work here?'' ``Yeah, we have you.'' I was rather discouraged, because the floor didn't seem to be getting any cleaner. Every few minutes, I would spill a few drops of dirty water onto the floor, and I would halfheartedly move the mop around whenever a classmate walked by the window. Mopping the floor as part of my jobs was beneath me. I was a really smart kid. Why should I have to do this work? I wasn't even building anything. Enough was enough. I was going to get my pay and get out of this place so fast that they would have to change their name to Getaway. I had quit better places than this one, and it got easier every time. I came to Job Corps because I wanted to get a good job. I hadn't come to the Job Corps work. After all, I was a really smart kid who had never had to work too hard when I was in school. Of course, I didn't really understand why being smart didn't seem to help too much with my grades. Back in school, I knew I was smarter than most of my classmates. Whenever there was a good opportunity to leave campus, I would be one of the first guys gone to enjoy the time. A lot of the other guys would waste their time reading over the chapter assigned for tomorrow. Why do it now, since I could do it tomorrow or the day after tomorrow? I didn't need to waste a lot of valuable time reading textbooks. I could always catchup later. After all, I was really a smart kid. Those guys who didn't even know how to have a good time went off to college, and there I was wasting a perfectly good Friday mopping my instructor's office. Actually, what I was doing had less to do with mopping and more to do with leaning on the mop, while I contemplated the injustice of it all. That was when my instructor entered the office without knocking first and when I began to think that maybe I wasn't such a smart kid after all. I would describe what he said, but I doubt that the written word would be able to express the volume properly. Also, I'm not too sure how to spell all of it. Suffice it to say that he got his meaning across pretty well. I figure that I might as well quit right then and there, just as I had at my other jobs. Why give him the satisfaction of firing me? Before I got the chance, he grabbed the mop out of my hand and began mopping the floor, even though he was the boss. In a minute he had finished the entire office, even though it was at least 15 square feet. The floor looked so good that I half expected Mr. Clean to be there looking up at us. I'm pretty sure that it had something to do with his putting more muscle into it than I put, especially since he told me that I had to put some muscle into it. The floor reflected so well on him that I was really surprised when he purposely threw a lot of dirt on it. ``Do you expect me to do your work for you? You came here to learn something.'' Then instead of telling me that I was fired, he told me in his own inimitable style to clean up the place NOW and that there was no excuse for not doing my best. He added that ``all work is a self-portrait of the person who did it.'' Then he went to check on the rest of the students in the shop to spread more joy. I was standing in an office that had a filthy floor, then had a beautiful and then had a filthy floor again. What a waste. He didn't need to mess up such a good job. He could have left it looking great and I would have learned . . . very little. There aren't that many moments in your life when you feel as though everything has changed, at least there haven't been that many in my life. I had grown accustomed to starting some work, doing half of it, growing bored, getting in trouble, losing my job and walking away from responsibility. Losing and walking away from a job can get to be a habit. This time I couldn't even walk away from the job. Gateway's in the middle of nowhere, and the Center Standards Officer stops everyone who even tries to go AWOL. This time I was stuck in a filthy office with a mop. It turns out that I was right. If you put a little muscle into it the mopping goes rather nicely. After I finished, it didn't look as good as it had when my instructor did it, but it did look better than it had before I started. My instructor had said ``all work is a self-portrait of the person who did it.'' Looking back over my life. I figured that it was time to stop eating crayons. I realized that there really isn't any excuse for not doing my best work. Losing had become a habit with me. I wanted to find out whether winning could get to be a habit as well. I would like to discuss how I went on to becoming the best Building and Apartment Maintenance student that my instructor has ever had, but I would be lying. Not everything went great the moment I realized that I wanted to paint a pretty picture. What did change was that I didn't quit. Many months later, I successfully completed the Building and Apartment Maintenance program of the Home Builders Institute. For the rest of my life, I'm a completer. As I was completing my trade, my boss told me how proud he was of me. His boss took the time during a business trip from Washington, D.C. to tell me how proud he was of me. Before Job Corps, I was the type of guy a boss wouldn't find, let alone compliment. Now they're recommending me for a Job Corps college program. I'm going to work hard to be a college ``completer'' too. I have been accepted to the university of the State of New York. How has Job Corps changed my life? Before I came to Job Corps, my self-portrait resembled the finger-printing of a slow kindergarten student. After I came to Job Corps it began to bear some likeness to a college man with a bright future. I would give you more of a critique, but I need to start reading NOW to get ready for college. I'm thinking about taking an elective in art history. I would like to learn about the work of Michelangelo, Da Vinci and my personal favorite, Norman Rockwell. I'm hopeful that if I work hard in school, maybe in a few years I'll be a smart man.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, in the current film, ``City Hall,'' the fictional mayor of New York City portrayed by Al Pacino says, ``There is one thing I will never get over. That is the murder of a police officer.'' As a Member of Congress, as an American, and as the son of a New York police lieutenant, I could not agree more emphatically with that statement. Mr. Speaker, this past Monday in my home parish of St. William the Abbot Church in Seaford, I attended the funeral of a police officer, Kevin Gillespie, a New York City police officer that was gunned down in the line of duty last March 14, 1996. Police Officer Gillespie was a cop's cop. Those who murdered him personified the very worst of the criminal elements in our society. They had been previously convicted of crimes, ranging from attempted murder to assault and armed robbery. The triggerman who fired the 9-millimeter slug into Kevin Gillespie's neck is a two-time violent offender. One of his accomplices was out on $25,000 bail for an armed robbery arrest in January, a crime committed while he was out on parole. Mr. Speaker, our criminal justice system has lost touch with the American people and is failing in its job. Mr. Speaker, I commend Governor Pataki for removing the Bronx district attorney for refusing to carry out the death penalty in this case, and I offer my condolences to Officer Gillespie and his family. Mr. Speaker, in the current film, ``City Hall,'' the fictional mayor of New York City portrayed by Al Pacino says, ``as Mayor, there is one thing that I will never get over, that is the murder of a police officer.'' As a Member of Congress, as an American, and as the son of a New York City police lieutenant, I could not agree more emphatically with that statement. This Monday in my parish of St. William the Abbot in Seaford, I attended the funeral of a murdered New York City police officer. Highly decorated NYPD Officer Kevin Gillespie was brutally gunned down on the night of March 14, 1996. Officer Gillespie leaves behind his wife Patty and two young sons, Danny, age 7, and Bobby, age 4. A Marine Corps veteran of the gulf war, Kevin Gillespie was recognized by his fellow officers and by the people he served as truly one of ``New York's Finest.'' Throughout his career, first with the New York City Housing Police and then with the NYPD, Officer Gillespie distinguished himself as a very special cop. Because of his spirit, dedication, and skill, he was selected for the elite street crime unit. Working with this unit on the night of March 14, Officer Gillespie was killed, and his partner, Terence McAllister, wounded, while attempting to apprehend a gang of three suspected car-jackers traveling in a stolen BMW. The three felons were all on parole. Collectively they had been convicted of a series of crimes ranging from attempted murder to assault and armed robbery. The triggerman who fired a 9mm slug into Kevin Gillespie's neck, Angel Diaz, is a two-time violent offender and one of his accomplices, Jesus Mendez, was on $25,000 bail for an armed robbery arrest in January. Even though arrested for a clear violation of his parole, this career criminal was allowed to make bail, walk the streets, and ultimately, commit murder. Mr. Speaker, in its current state, the criminal justice system represents a clear and present danger to American society. Liberal judges and juries set free vicious criminals to again prey on the innocent. Unless the absolute surety of severe punishment for serious crimes once again becomes the law of the land, we are all in jeopardy. When a civil society's first line of defense against mayhem and chaos--our police--can be killed with impunity, none of us are safe. Those who would attack with deadly force a police officer must understand that they will pay the ultimate price. The murder of a police officer is a depraved act. It displays absolute contempt for society and total indifference to human life. There is only one fitting punishment for a cop killer. I strongly support the imposition of the death penalty for certain heinous crimes. The death penalty should be applied without question or consideration for those found guilty of murdering a police officer. There may be some argument as to the deterrent effect of such a policy--I believe that the death penalty does serve as strong deterrent. There can be no disagreement, however, over the fact, that if dealt with properly, the despicable felon who gunned down Officer Gillespie will never again threaten society. There is no question that the death penalty should be sought in the case of Angel Diaz and his accomplices, Jesus Mendez and Ricardo Morales. On this matter I am in complete agreement with New York Governor George Pataki, New York Attorney General Dennis Vacco, and New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. I commend each of these men for their stand, and completely support Governor Pataki's right to remove Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson from the case for refusing to seek the death penalty. Mr. Speaker, Kevin Gillespie died in the line of duty doing his job for his fellow citizens. Ten thousand police officers attended his funeral to demonstrate their support for him. We must honor Police Officer Gillespie's memory by carrying out our duty and standing with the men and women of law enforcement against the violent, vicious criminals who prey upon law-abiding citizens. Mr. Speaker, Police Officer Kevin Gillespie died as he lived--with courage, with dignity, and with faith in God. And now I ask this House to pay its own tribute to this outstanding man. Please join me as I express my regret at the loss of Police Officer Kevin Gillespie and my profoundest condolences to his wife Patty, his sons Danny and Bobby, and to his entire family.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Alexander Meleshka, one of my constituents from Farmingdale, NY, and a proud veteran of our ``Crusade in Europe.'' Serving with the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division, Mr. Meleshka saw combat in France. His unit, the 3rd Battalion of the 15th Infantry Regiment, became involved in a particularly fierce battle in October 1944, while seizing a bridge over the Mortagne River. In the fight to take the bridge before the enemy could demolish it, Mr. Meleshka distinguished himself under fire. The first man in his unit across the bridge, Mr. Meleshka was taken prisoner by the Germans and transported to Stalag 7. At Stalag 7, Mr. Meleshka, who spoke Russian and several other languages, was moved by the plight of the camp's 150 or so Russian prisoners. Abandoned by their own nation's brutal Communist dictator and subject to inhumane treatment dictated by the racist policies of their Nazi captors, the Russian prisoners faced slow death. Throughout his captivity, Mr. Meleshka regularly risked severe punishment and even death to assist the Russians. By smuggling small portions of food to our captive allies, Mr. Meleshka certainly saved lives. His behavior exemplified the American ideas of doing the right thing, standing up for the underdog, and coming to the aid of a friend in need. His actions demonstrated what the war was all about. Some 50 years after the end of World War II, Mr. Meleshka was recognized for his bravery and humanity by Russian President Boris Yeltsin when he was awarded the Gold Commemorative Medal of the 50th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. Mr. Speaker, I believe that our Nation should also recognize Mr. Meleshka for his deeds. He is truly an American hero.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute a very special group of athletes, the All Island Handicapped Sports, Inc. sled hockey team. This outstanding collection of sportsmen has done themselves, and all of Long Island, proud, representing New York at the Wendy's International Sled Hockey Tournament in Hamilton, ON, Canada. The team defeated Hamilton, 3 to 2, on a goal by Tony Fitzgerald, assisted by Larry Northorn, and two goals by Vic Calise with assists from Larry Northorn, Rich Northorn III, James Abatino, and Tony Fitzgerald. Downing Kitchener/Elmvale, 3 to 1, the team was led by scorers Fitzgerald, Larry Northorn, Calise, and William Schwarz. Defeating a determined Chicago squad 4 to 2, the team reached the gold medal round against a very tough Kingston, Canada team. Although downed 7 to 0 by Kingston, the New York team earned the tournament's silver medal. Throughout the tournament, the New York team got stellar goal tending from Ryan Bora, hard-hitting defense from Dr. Stephen Mordecai, William Schwarz, Chuck Albert, and Donald Saracen, and excellent line play from Joey Messing, Vito Giambruno, Zachary Lynn, Gregory Nelson, Anthony Donaroma, Jonathan Rotkin, and Mark Turan. Every member of the team can be proud of earning the tourney's silver medal. As a fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers, I would like to offer the All Island Handicapped Sports team the following encouragement: wait 'til next year--I know you can bring home the gold. New York Sled Hockey Roster James Abatino #62, Chuck Albert #8, Ryan Borja #20, Victor Calise #9, Anthony Donaroma #3, Anthony Fitzgerald #22, Vito Giambruno #83, Zachary Lynn #1, and Dr. Stephen Martucci #2 Joseph Messina #52, Gregory Nelson #13, Lawrence Northorn #60, Richard Northorn III #14, Jonathan Rotkin #5, William Schwarz #16, Donald Sorokin #32, and Mark Turan #99.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International recently issued a report called Amnesty International and India detailing India's violations of fundamental human rights. On the very first page of this report, Amnesty International states that ``violations such as torture, including rape, and deaths in custody remain endemic, and * * * political prisoners continue to face unfair trials.'' The report goes on to tell us that ``human rights violations affect most segments of Indian society, with people from some groups, particularly the socially or economically disadvantaged, being particularly disadvantaged.'' The record bears this out. More than 150,000 Sikhs have been killed since 1984, over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947 and in excess of 43,000 Moslems in Kashmir since 1988. Tens of thousands of Assamese, Manipuris, and others have been killed, as have thousands of Dalits or black untouchables. The amnesty report cites the extensive use of disappearances as a way to circumvent the rights of detainees. Records of detentions are not maintained, allowing the regime to claim that the detainee died in an encounter, a form of extrajudicial execution. ``Thousands of people remain detained under the provisions of the now lapsed Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,'' the report says. Many of us have spoken about the brutality of TADA. Amnesty reports that ``torture of detainees in police and military custody remains endemic.'' According to the report, ``the most common method of torture is beating with lathis (canes). Other methods included suspension by the wrist and electric shocks. Reports of rapes indicate that it is used as a method of torture.'' According to the report, ``in 1995 at least 100 people died in the custody of police or security forces throughout India, as a result of torture and medical neglect.'' In the face of this kind of repression, no Sikh ever signed India's constitution. Instead, the Sikh Nation reasserted its claim to freedom on October 7, 1987 by declaring the independent, sovereign nation of Khalistan. Many Sikhs who are working peacefully to free Khalistan are denied their human rights by India. Human rights groups estimate that more than 100,000 Sikhs have been tortured, raped, killed, or made to disappear. Another 70,000 languish in India prisons without charge or trial, according to human rights groups. According to Amnesty International, ``lawyers and relatives are routinely denied access by police to people held in custody.'' The report tells us that ``most torture and ill-treatment in India occurs during the first stage of detention in police custody, when access to outsiders is routinely denied.'' Amnesty International sharply criticizes India for these repressive practices. ``Whatever imperatives the Indian state has to maintain internal peace and security, the violation of rights protected by the Constitution of India as well as by human rights standards is avoidable,'' the report says. Strong action by free countries of the world is called for. There are two bills in the House that address these concerns. H.R. 1425, the Human Rights in India Act, would cut off United States development aid to India until basic human rights are respected, and House Concurrent Resolution 32 calls for a plebiscite in India under international supervision to let the Sikh nation have a free and fair vote on its political future. The sooner we pass these bills, the sooner the people of South Asia can live in freedom, security, and dignity. I call upon my colleagues to pass these bills as soon as possible. Amnesty International and India This report is an introduction to Amnesty International and its concerns in India. It answers basic questions about Amnesty International: its role as a non-governmental international human rights organization; its worldwide membership, its mandate for action, its campaigning methods; and its work and membership in India. The bulk of the report deals with human rights violations that Amnesty International has documented in India over several decades. It shows that violations such as torture, including rape, and deaths in custody remain endemic, and that political prisoners continue to face unfair trials. It highlights a legal and judicial system that facilitates these and many other abuses, often allowing the perpetrators to act with impunity. Even the safeguards that do exist are regularly disregarded. The report also summarizes human rights abuses committed by armed opposition groups. Human rights violations affect most sections of Indian society, with people from some groups, particularly the socially or economically disadvantaged, being especially vulnerable. In a complex society of approximately 920 million people, speaking dozens of languages and dialects, living in 25 states and seven union territories, not everyone has equal access to justice or an equal chance to be allowed to live in safety and with dignity.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, during the past 2 years, the people of Ireland have made historic progress toward a true and lasting peace. I am a cochairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Irish Affairs, along with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton]. The Ad Hoc Committee today is issuing a statement for St. Patrick's Day. We are urging that all parties to this process continue on the path toward peace. Specifically, we are calling upon the Irish Republican Army to immediately recommence the cease-fire. We are calling on the British Government to make every good faith effort to answer any questions that parties to the conflict have regarding the recent communique issued in London. We also call for the commencement of all party talks by June 10 without the imposition of any preconditions by the British Government, and we call upon the President to continue his policy of active and constructive engagement in the Irish peace process. The people of Ireland have come too far to allow recent incidents to deter them on their path toward peace. Mr. Speaker, on a bipartisan note, which should characterize this policy toward Ireland, I commend the President for issuing a visa to Gerry Adams to enter this country, and I commend Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith for standing up to the Anglophiles in the State Department. Mr. Speaker, I include our committee statement for the Record, as follows: Congressional Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs, St. Patrick's Day Message, March 14, 1996 We, the members of the Congressional Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs, ask all Americans to join with us in praying for peace in Ireland as we celebrate this Saint Patrick's Day. The people of Ireland have worked too hard, and come too far on the road to peace to abandon the remarkable progress made in the past two years. The people of the United States-- of Irish descent and otherwise--have shared in the joy of the Irish people at the significant steps forward just as we share in their disappointment and despair at recent setbacks. To avoid squandering the hard-won gains toward a just and lasting peace for all Ireland, the government of the United States must remain engaged in the Irish peace process, both as an honest broker and as a guarantor of the equity of that process in ensuring that the legitimate aspirations of all parties to the conflict are fully represented. With this goal in mind, the Congressional Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs: Deplores the recent return to violence by the Irish Republican Army, and urges the IRA to reinstate the ceasefire immediately; Calls on the British government to make every good faith effort to provide to all concerned political parties explicit clarification of any provisions of the recent joint communique by Prime Minister John Major and Taoiseach John Bruton; Calls for the commencement of meaningful all-party talks by June 10th, without the imposition of any preconditions by the British government; and Calls upon the President of the United States to continue his policy of active and constructive engagement in fostering the Irish peace process. The 104th Congress has worked in bipartisan cooperation to support the Irish peace process. In addition, we have made substantial progress in addressing one of the root causes of the problems in the north of Ireland by moving closer to the historic passage of the MacBride fair employment principles as part of our contribution to the International Fund for Ireland. We, the Members of the Congressional Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs, are committed to ensuring that the United States continues to use its influence as a force for positive change in Ireland. Ben Gilman, Cochairman. Richard Neal, Cochairman. Tom Manton, Cochairman. Pete King, Cochairman.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5-minute rule: Committee on Commerce, Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Committee on International Relations, Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on National Security, Committee on Resources, Committee on Science, Committee on Small Business, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome a new American citizen, my nephew, Stephen Clement Mettler II, who was born on Friday, January 19, 1996, at 1:34 p.m. in Chicago. Young Stephen weighed in 9 pounds, 2 ounces, measured 21 inches long, and has blond hair and blue eyes. I would also like to congratulate the proud parents, Stephen and Stacey Mettler, the happy grandparents Stephen and Kathy Mettler of Atlanta and Charles and Mary Kaye Montforo of Houston, and especially, Stephen II's great-grandmother, Agnes Wiedl of Atlanta.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a great American, a great Army officer, a great Hoosier, and a great soldier. Last month Frank Prindle completed over 21 years of dedicated service to our country. As a soldier, leader, and finally as a trusted member of the Army's Officer of Congressional Liaison, House Division, he has provided dedicated and distinguished service. Today as we honor his retirement, we reflect on the outstanding career which Frank started in 1970 when he entered the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and where he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in Signal Branch in 1974. Over the course of the past two decades he served in a variety of exceptionally challenging troop and staff assignments in the United States, Canada, Germany, and Korea. His positions of leadership include signal platoon leader, aviation service platoon leader, aviation company commander, and battalion operations officer during an exchange tour with the Canadian Armed Forces. As a staff officer he saw duty in many tough and challenging positions, validating the confidence the Army placed in his demonstrated abilities. After serving in the field with many aviation units, Frank Prindle demonstrated his superb organizational skills while serving as the senior service college education officer, the aviation branch assignments officer for majors and as the executive officer to the Director of Officer Personnel Management Division, U.S. Army Military Personnel Command. His selection as a Congressional Fellow in 1991 further demonstrated the high regard which Prindle is held by the leadership of the Army. This 1-year tour led to his final assignment as a Congressional Liaison Officer for the Secretary of the Army, House Liaison Division. During Frank Prindle's tour in Army Legislative Liaison, he guided the Army's relationship with a wide variety of committees and individual Members of Congress. His ability to remain calm and focused during a period of tremendous change was demonstrated continually in his dealings with both Members of Congress, professional staff, and personal staff. Through Frank Prindle's involvement with the Veteran Affairs Committees, he ensured that the programs put in place during the downsizing of the Armed Forces continued to benefit the soldiers. Frank Prindle's career reflects a commitment to our Nation, characterized by dedicated selfless service, love for the Army and a commitment to excellence. Lt. Col. Frank L. Prindle's performance, over two decades of service, personifies the traits of courage, competency, and integrity that our Nation has come to expect from its Army officers. On behalf of the Congress of the United States and the people of this great Nation, I offer our heartfelt appreciation and best wishes for a soldier who served his country so admirably.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note that last month Sikhs and the world remembered the 11th anniversary of the brutal November 1984 massacre of Sikhs in which more than 40,000 Sikhs were killed by government-inspired mobs while government television and radio repeatedly called for more Sikh blood. Over 20,000 Sikhs were killed in Delhi alone during this massacre. For 3 days, the police stood aside, under strict orders to do nothing. Sikh police officers were disarmed and confined to their barracks to prevent them from helping their Sikh brothers and sisters. In all, more than 150,000 Sikhs have been murdered in India since 1984. In addition, there have been murders of over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, more than 43,000 Muslims in Kashmir since 1988, tens of thousands of Assamese, Manipuris, and others, and thousands of Dalits ``black untouchables''. The State Department reported in 1994 that between 1991 and 1993, the Indian regime paid over 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for killing Sikhs. Self-determination is the God-given right of all people of all nations. This is the principle that underlies our Declaration of Independence, and it is a principle that is sweeping the world. On October 7, 1987, the Sikh nation asserted its right the self- determination by declaring its independence from India, forming the sovereign, independent country of Khalistan. The Sikhs had ruled Punjab from 1765 to 1849. India's response to Khalistan's declaration of independence has been to set up the repression against the Sikh nation. Today Khalistan lives under the occupation of 500,000 Indian troops-- more troops than the British stationed in the entire subcontinent at any time during their rule. As the leader of the free, democratic countries of the world, the United States should not be propping up this repressive tyranny. It is time for America to take strong action to see to it that India respects human rights and the right of self-determination. I am introducing into the Record a speech delivered by Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, at a November 4 rally commemorating the November 1984 massacres. Statement of Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh Today we are gathered to commemorate the anniversary of India's brutal November 1994 massacres of Sikhs in which more than 20,000 Sikhs were murdered by government-inspired mobs in Delhi alone, and over 40,000 throughout India. As the Home Minister at that time, Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao was intimately involved in that murderous operation. For three days, the regime did nothing about the massacre while the state television and radio cried for more Sikh blood. In India there is no peace [[Page E 2320]] or freedom for Sikhs or other minority nations. The record of Indian rule in our homeland, Punjah, Khalistan, is one of genocide and tyranny by the country that presumes to call itself ``the world's largest democracy.'' The Associated Press recently reported on the suit filed in India's Supreme Court by Harpreet Singh, a Sikh man who was illegally detained four years ago and listed as having been killed in an ``encounter'' with the police. While we are glad that his case came to light, it is not unusual. Sikhs continue to be oppressed and butchered in supposedly free India. India is a country which tortures, murders, abducts, and rapes people. In India, ``disappearances'' are routine. Recently, the Indian press reported that since 1990 over 25,000 young Sikh men had been abducted, tortured, and murdered by the Indian regime. Then their bodies were listed as unclaimed and cremated. The person who issued this report, Jaswant Singh Khalra, general secretary of the Human Rights Wing (Shiromani Akali Dal), was abducted by the Amritsar police on September 6 and has not been seen since. The next day, Amnesty International issued an ``Urgent Action'' bulletin calling for his release. They expressed the fear that Mr. Khalra is being tortured. Indeed, according to Asia Watch, ``virtually everyone detained in Punjab [Khalistan] is tortured.'' A mass grave which held the remains of 400 Cambodians shook the world, as it should have. Why is the mass cremation of more than 25,000 innocent Sikhs in Punjab, Khalistan, ignored? On October 19, 65 members of the U.S. House of Representatives from both parties and across the political spectrum wrote to Mr. Rao demanding Mr. Khalra's release. So far there has been no response. Mr. Khalra remains in illegal detention. According to a report issued by Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights, one police officer told HRW/PHR that ``over a five-year period, 500 people were killed by police station alone.'' Another police is quoted as saying, ``During my five years with the Punjab Police, I estimate 4,000 to 5,000 were tortured at my police station alone,'' There are over 200 such police stations in Punjab, Khalistan. A policy of summary executions in Punjab, Khalistan has the blessings of some key officials at the Centre, as borne out by a series of secret communications from Delhi. The pattern of ``encounter killings'' is that ``the victim would be detained during police raids on villages or city neighborhoods and tortured for several days before being killed. One police officer said: `During my career with the Punjab police, I participated in approximately five raids per day.''' Three types of Sikhs are targeted for torture and death by the police: (1) Amritdari Sikhs, (2) young Sikh men and (3) political asylum returnees. The U.S. State Department reports that from 1991 through 1993, the Indian regime paid more than 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for killing Sikhs. In November 1994, the Indian newspaper Hitavada reported that the late governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, was paid $1.5 billion to organize and support covert state terrorism in Punjab, Khalistan, and in neighboring Kashmir. Seventy-five percent of Punjab's water has been diverted to nonriparian states. India is a police state, not a democracy at all. It takes more than elections to make a democracy. I would remind you that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected. For Sikhs, Kashmiri Muslims, Christians in Nagaland, Assamese, and the tribal people of Manipur, no matter who wins the elections, the bloody repression continues. The Indian regime has killed over 120,000 Sikhs since 1984, over 43,000 Kashmiris since 1988 and over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947. Tens of thousands of people have been killed in Assam, Manipur, and other tribal areas since independence. Dalits (``black untouchables'') have died by the thousands. Recently a Dalit girl was blinded by her teacher for the sin of drinking from the water pitcher. A few years ago, a Dalit constable was stoned to death when he sought shelter in a temple on a rainy day. In the state of Madhya Pradesh in late February, a 40-year-old nun was pulled from a bus in the town of Indore and stabbed 36 times by a Hindu militant. These are not the acts of a democratic nation. The U.N. Charter, to which India is a party, calls on nations ``to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.'' Where is the tolerance in these Indian policies? The historical record shows that 85 percent of those hanged in the cause of India's independence were Sikhs. Eighty (80) percent of those exiled and 75 percent of those jailed were Sikhs as well, despite the fact that the Sikhs at that time constituted less than 2 percent of India's population. In 1947, when India achieved independence, three nations were to receive power. The Hindus got India, the Muslims got Pakistan, and the Sikh nation was to receive a state of our own. But the Sikh leadership at the time made the critical mistake of taking our share with India on the solemn promises of Gandhi and Nehru that Sikhs would enjoy ``the glow of freedom'' in Punjab and that no law affecting Sikh rights would be passed without Sikh consent. As soon as the constitution was adopted, those promises were broken and the repression of our people began. As a result, no Sikh has ever signed the Indian constitution. Nine times the Indian regime has imposed Presidential rule--direct rule by the central government--on the Sikhs of Punjab. Kashmir and Nagaland currently suffer under Presidential rule. Many other states have suffered the same fate. Rule from the Center is imposed in utter disregard of democratic principles. Perhaps the greatest offense of all, however, was the Indian regime's brutal terrorist attack on the most holy Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple in Amritsar and 38 other Sikh temples throughout Punjab, in June 1984. This is the equivalent of attacking the Vatican or Mecca. These brutal attacks ultimately resulted in the murder of 20,000 Sikhs by the government, including important Sikh leaders like Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, a major spokesman for Sikh freedom. The attack took place from June 3 through 6, 1984. 15,000 troops of the Indian army took part in this surprise attack, called Operation Bluestar. These attacks were timed to fall on a holy day for the Sikh nation. Many innocent, unarmed men, and women and children, who had come only to pray on the anniversary of the martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev Ji, were instead gunned down in the very temples in which they sought peace and solace. In the face of this repression, the Sikh nation declared its independence on October 7, 1987, forming the separate country of Khalistan. Although our movement to liberate Khalistan is peaceful, democratic, and nonviolent, the brutal Indian regime insists upon treating all Sikhs as ``terrorists.'' The cases of Harpreet Singh and Jaswant Singh Khalra clearly emanate from that policy. This past September 19, U.S. Representative Philip M. Crane, one of the senior Members of Congress, called upon the Indian regime to recognize the independence of Khalistan. It is time for the United Nations to do the same. The Sikh nation showed its support for independence in February 1992, when only four (4) percent of the Sikh population in Punjab, Khalistan, voted in the elections there, held under the Indian constitution, a constitution which no Sikh has ever signed. In December, Sikh leader Simranjit Singh Mann spoke to a crowd of 50,000 Sikhs and called for a peaceful, democratic, nonviolent movement to liberate Khalistan. He asked his audience to raise their hands if they agreed. All 50,000 hands were raised. For this blatant act of free speech, he was arrested in January and kept in illegal detention for six months. He continues to face charges under the repressive ``Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act'' (TADA), which has expired. Old charges against Mr. Mann which has been dismissed were reinstated in order to frighten him into silence. Our demand for freedom is irrevocable, irreversible, and non- negotiable. India is not one nation. It is a conglomeration of many nations thrown together for administrative purposes by the British. With 18 official languages, India is doomed to disintegrate just as the former Soviet Union did. Freedom for Khalistan and all the nations living under Indian occupation is inevitable. It is time for India to recognize the inevitable and end its illegal occupation of Khalistan and the other minority nations it occupies. India must recognize Khalistan's independence, as Congressman Crane said. It is time for the United Nations to stop dignifying bloodthirsty tyrants like Mr. Rao. It is time for the U.N. to speak out for the ideals of its charter by working to liberate Khalistan and all the nations of the Indian subcontinent. Freedom is the universal birthright of all people and nations. It is this universal right that the Sikh nation claims for itself. The only way that right can be preserved is in a sovereign, independent Khalistan. India must recognize reality and free Khalistan now. The Sikh nation will be free. KHALISTAN ZINDABAD.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam Speaker, as you know, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. That is why I am pleased to be joining many of my colleagues this evening to participate in a Special Order on raising breast cancer awareness. While breast cancer is a serious problem in communities all across the country, it has enacted a particularly terrible toll in my home area of Long Island. Between 1984 and 1988, the breast cancer mortality rate for one group of women in Nassau County was 16 percent higher than that of New York State and 36 percent higher than that of the Nation. There is scarcely a family on Long Island that has not been affected by this dread disease. These alarming statistics prompted Congressional action in 1993. Working closely with other concerned Members of Congress, the Long Island delegation was successful in securing authorization for the Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project. Under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute, several of New York's finest research institutions are actively investigating the impact that the environment may have on Long Island's high rate of breast cancer. I am very pleased that this landmark Study is now underway. Earlier this year, I was approached by fellow Long Islander Diane Sackett Nannery who informed me of her crusade to win approval of a special Pink Ribbon Breast Cancer Awareness Stamp. I immediately enlisted the support of 101 of our colleagues in sending a letter to Postmaster General Marvin Runyon urging approval of the breast cancer stamp. As a result of our efforts and the tireless determination of Diane Nannery, the Postal Service has announced that it will issue a breast cancer awareness stamp in 1996. A major goal of raising awareness about breast cancer is to encourage women to get screening mammographies. This procedure is simple, safe and the best tool available for detecting a potential problem. The National Cancer Institute recently initiated a new service designed to provide information about FDA-approved mammography facilities. By dialing 1-800-422-6237 women will receive information on the facility nearest them. Through this service, I was able to obtain information on the 59 facilities located in Nassau County. At a time when many Federal programs are being reduced or eliminated, the new Republican leadership has identified breast cancer research funding as a top priority. Included in the fiscal year 1996 Labor, Health and Human Services and Related Agencies Appropriations bill (H.R. 2127), is a 4-percent increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health. These additional resources will result in more money for breast cancer research at the National Cancer Institute. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this critical funding receives final approval from Congress in the days ahead. We have only just begun to fight the scourge of breast cancer. I am committed to doing all that I can to fund research, increase awareness, and make mammography screening available and accessible to women all across the country. The battle against this disease will continue to be a top priority.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take this opportunity to salute one of my constituents for his role in the global struggle against tyranny during World War II. Mr. George Wallace, from Merrick, NY, is a member of the very best generation this Nation ever produced. Like millions of other men from all across the United States, when war came to America in 1941, he answered the call to duty and did his part. His service record during the Second World War is both remarkable and typical. I would like to enter into the Record a brief outline of his military service. George Wallace joined the U.S. Army in October 1942. After graduating Officer Candidate School he has commissioned as a 2d lieutenant of the field artillery. Shipped to England in 1944, he graduated Airborne School and was assigned to the 17th Airborne Division, 680th Glider Field Artillery Battalion. Wallace served with this unit in the Battle of the Bulge and Operation Varsity, the largest airborne operation of the war. Fighting throughout, the Rhineland Campaign, Wallace took part in the capture of Wesel, Munster, and the Ruhr Valley complex. After V-E Day, he transferred to the 101st Airborne for occupation duties and training for possible action during the then-likely invasion of Japan. Following the deactivation of the 101st, he transferred to the 82nd Airborne and marched with that unit under Gen. James M. Gavin during a victory parade in New York City on January 6, 1946. During the war years, he had had the honor of serving in three different airborne divisions. Not yet through serving his country, George Wallace stayed on with the Army Reserve until April, 1953. Following his distinguished military service, Wallace joined the New York City Fire Department, where he served for 29 years before retiring as assistant chief of the department. I was very proud on October 11, 1995, to be joined in Washington by Mr. George Wallace for the special joint meeting of Congress in honor of World War II veterans. We must never forget the courage and sacrifice of those millions of American young men, who like George Wallace answered their country's call during World War II.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, October 10 marked the 84th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China. Normally, this day is marked here in Washington by a number of social events. However this year, there is a more important reason for us to recognize the events in China in 1911. As all the world can see, it is only under a democratic system that Taiwan has been able to flourish economically and socially. In fact, over the last decade the Republic of China has become one of the world's leading economic powers. To help recognize the achievements of America's friends on Taiwan, I urge my colleagues here in the Congress to support the Republic of China's bid to gain membership in the United Nations. Although a member of several international organizations, the Republic of China has been refused a seat in the United Nations. Very simply, the exclusion of the Republic of China is an outrageous denial of a voice on important international issues to the people of a thriving democracy. I know that Representative Benjamin Lu has worked tirelessly for the last year on this matter. Mr. Speaker, I can think of no better way for this institution to show support for the democratic ideals found in the Republic of China than to support its inclusion in the United Nations.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in tribute to Jason Chao who is leaving the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Washington, DC, after many years of outstanding service. J.C., as he is known by his many friends, has been an outstanding representative and advocate for the Government of the Republic of China in Taiwan. He has established strong professional and personal relationships with many Members of this body who greatly admire his integrity and ability. Over the years Taiwan has become an economic superpower and a model democracy. It is because of the efforts of people like Jason Chao that Taiwan has been able to make these great strides. J.C. now returns to his native Taiwan to pursue a career in the media. While I certainly wish him well in his new career, I also look forward to the day he returns to Government service so that he can continue to strengthen the ties of friendship between Taiwan and the United States.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 1987, the Sikh Nation took its destiny into its own hands by declaring the independence of Khalistan. I am very pleased to salute the Sikhs of Khalistan on this anniversary. The Sikh Nation ruled Punjab in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and was supposed to receive its own country when the British freed India in 1947. Though promised by India that their freedom would be protected, those promises collapsed like a house of cards. As a result, no Sikh has ever signed the Indian constitution and the Sikh Nation has struggled ever since then to regain its sovereignty. I find it appropriate that as the anniversary of Khalistan's independence approaches, the government of Canada is re-opening its investigation into the 1985 explosion of an Air India jetliner which killed 329 people to determine if there was any involvement by the Indian government. In this light, American support for Khalistan's independence is crucial. I commend the Council of Khalistan for the work it is doing to free the Sikh Nation and I join my colleagues in congratulating the Sikh Nation on the anniversary of Khalistan's declaration of independence. I am placing into the record a review of Soft Target, the book that describes the Air India case, by David Kilgour, a Canadian Member of Parliament, and an article from Awaze Quam by Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan. Should The U.S. Be Trading With India? Washington.--Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, today condemned India's downing of its own airliner ten years ago. June 23 marks the tenth anniversary of the attack, which killed 329 people. ``This was a tragic event,'' said Dr. Aulakh. The Sikh Nation extends its deepest sympathies to the families of the victims. This act was brutal terrorism in its most naked form. Agents of the Indian regime openly blamed the Sikhs for the attack even before it was known to the public that it had happened. But in Soft Target, journalist Brian McAndrew of the Toronto Star and Zuhair Kashmeri of the Toronto Globe and Mail, show conclusively that the Indian regime blew up its own airliner. In the book, an agent of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) is quoted as saying ``If you really want to clear the incidents quickly, take vans down to the Indian High Commission and the consulates in Toronto and Vancourver, load everybody up and take them down for questioning. We know it and they know it that they are involved.'' According to the book, the Indian consul general in Toronto, Surinder Malik, identified and ``L. Singh'' whom Malik said was a Sikh activist in Canada, as the culprit. This occurred when the police had just found the passenger register. But according to Kashmeri and McAndrew, Malik took his wife and daughter off that flight shortly before it departed. An auto dealer who was a friend of Malik's also cancelled his reservation at the last minute. The book also reports that less than a year before the Air India bombing, 29 people were killed and 32 injured in an airplane bombing Madras which also appears to have been planned by Indian Intelligence. According to Soft Target ``CSIS found the similarities between the Madras plot and the bombing--aboard Air Indian remarkable.'' Additionally, according to Kashmeri and McAndrew, ``CSIS was astounded that such similar plans could be hatched in opposite parts of the world. It would not be so astounding though, if the plans emanated from the same source--namely, from within the Indian intelligence service.'' ``Brutal terrorist acts like the Air India bombing should prevent any country from receiving American aid or trade,'' said Dr. Aulakj. ``Events like this only remind us that India is a brutal tyrant which will stop at nothing to achieve its aims. If America is a moral country, it must cut off all aid to India.'' Dr. Aulakj said. Recently, India has emerged as a new U.S. business partner despite evidence that it is collapsing. Several Swiss drug companies pulled out last year due to the unstable market and the Washington Post reported last fall that it takes the average Indian three days pay just to buy a box of Corn Flakes. Yet the U.S. and India have exchanged visits from high-level officials in pursuit of increased trade between India and the United States. The Indian regime has murdered over 120,000 Sikhs since 1984. It has also killed over 43,000 Kashmiri Muslims since 1988, over 150,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, and tens of thousands of Assamese, Marupuris, and others. According to the U.S. State Department, over 41,000 cash bounties were paid to police officers between 1991 and 1993 for killing Sikhs. Many people are beginning to see the breakup of India as inevitable. Dr. Jack Wheeler of Freedom Research Foundation, who foresaw the Soviet breakup, predicted last year in the newsletter Strategic Investment that within ten years, Indian ``will cease to exist as we know (it).'' On October 7, 1987, the Sikh nation declared the independent country of Khalistan. No Sikh has ever signed the Indian constitution. Sikh ruled Punjab from 1710 to 1716 and from 1765 to 1849. In the February 1992 state elections in Punjab, only 4 percent of the Sikhs there voted, according to Indian Abroad. On December 26, former Member of Parliament Simranjit Singh Mann spoke to a crowd of 50,000 Sikhs calling for a peaceful, democratic, nonviolent movement to liberate Khalistan. He asked those attending to raise their hands if they supported freedom for Khalistan. All 50,000 did so. For that speech he was arrested on January 5 under the new- expired Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA), despite the fact that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that speaking out for Khalistan is not a crime. Mr. Mann remains in illegal detention in a windowless cell after more than five months. ``The continuing detention of Sardar Mann shows how frightened India is of an idea,'' said Dr. Aulakh. ``Just talking about freedom for Khalistan terrifies the brutal tyrants of New Delhi. But freedom for Khalistan and all the nations living under brutal Indian occupation is inevitable,'' said Dr. Aulakh. ``India is not one nation,'' he said, ``It is a conglomeration of many nations thrown together for administrative purposes by the British. It is last vestige of colonialism. With 18 official language, India is doomed to disintegrate just as the former Soviet Union did.'' Dr. Aulakh said, ``The Sikh Nation's demand for an independent Khalistan is irrevocable, irreversible, and non-negotiable. But we are willing to sit down with the Indian regime anytime to demarcate the boundaries of Khalistan. A peaceful resolution to this issue is in India's interest. It is time for India to recognize the inevitable and withdraw from Khalistan and all the nations it brutally occupies.''

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration's decision to have the First Lady attend the Women's Conference in Beijing would be troubling enough under any circumstances. Not only does China's Communist Government routinely trample the human rights of all its citizens--male and female--it also felt compelled to execute 16 political dissidents in preparation for this conference. Very simply, the administration has allowed itself to be maneuvered into providing the veneer of moral respectability to an outlaw regime such as the People's Republic of China [PRC]. Even more troubling, however, is the doubt which this decision casts on the willingness of the United States to resist mainland China's increasingly aggressive actions against Taiwan. The Republic of China fought side by side with the United States in World War II and continued to be a loyal ally of the United States after Chiang Kai-shek evacuated his forces from the Chinese mainland and moved the Government of the Republic of China to Taiwan in 1949. It has also become a free- market economic powerhouse. Taiwan is the United States' seventh largest trading partner, has more than $80 billion in foreign exchange reserves and, even though its population is 50 times smaller, has a GDP comparable to mainland China's. Taiwan also has strong defense forces, lacking only sophisticated fighter jets and anti-missile systems. Taiwan's greatest achievement, however, has been its attainment of an open, democratic society. For years Taiwan had a closed political system. Martial law was lifted in 1987, however, and Taiwan now has a robust political system, with a particularly combative National Assembly. In March 1996 the President, [[Page E 1791]] heretofore elected by the legislature, will be elected by popular vote. This will mark the first time in the history of China that a President has been democratically elected. Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, Taiwan's economic might and its embrace of democracy have enraged the PRC which has reacted aggressively. Economically, for instance, the PRC has been able to delay Taiwan's admission into GATT. Diplomatically, the People's Republic insisted that the United States not allow Taiwan's President Lee Teng-hui to enter our country, even on a private visit. True to form, earlier this year the State Department capitulated and denied President Lee's request to visit his alma mater, Cornell University. Fortunately, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly adopted a resolution supporting President Lee's visit and President Clinton overruled the State Department, granting President Lee a visa to speak at Cornell this past June. The PRC's response to President Lee's visit has bordered on the hysterical. Besides recalling its Ambassador from the United States and unleashing vicious propaganda tirades against President Lee, the PRC has conducted provocative military exercises off Taiwan's coast, including test-firing missiles in the East China Sea just 80 miles north of Taiwan. The PRC is planning further missile testing and naval maneuvers near Taiwan. Clearly the PRC is attempting to use the threat of invasion to intimidate the people of Taiwan into rejecting President Lee and adopting a docile foreign policy. If the PRC is successful in carrying out this extortion and subverting the democratic process in Taiwan, the United States will only be encouraging further PRC aggression in the region against Japan and the Philippines and we will be severely marginalized as a Pacific power. In short we will have allowed the PRC to establish Asian hegemony. To avert this moral and diplomatic catastrophe, the administration must: First, make it clear that any military action against Taiwan will result in a worldwide embargo and diplomatic isolation of the PRC; second, expeditiously complete the delivery of the 150 F-16 fighter jets already purchased by Taiwan; third, provide anti-missile systems to Taiwan; and fourth, reinforce our policy of granting visas to Taiwan's elected officials. Additionally, the Congress should promptly adopt House Concurrent Resolution 63 introduced by Representative Gerald Solomon which would urge Taiwan's admission into the United Nations. The bottom line of America's China policy must be the recognition that the PRC needs us more than we need them. As President Nixon said shortly before his death ``the Chinese will not launch a military attack against Taiwan as long as Beijing knows such an action would jeopardize their relationship with the United States.'' Last month I had the opportunity to meet with President Lee in Taiwan. He is an impressive leader who is clearly committed to democratic principles. As the world's leading democracy, the United States must stand with democratic nations in their time of peril. By standing with the Republic of China on Taiwan at this time, the United States will be acting in our best traditions and strengthening the cause of peace and stability in the Pacific.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of one of our Nation's most eminent educators and scholars, Prof. Edward J. Murphy of the University of Notre Dame Law School who passed away on July 24. Professor Murphy taught at Notre Dame from 1957 to 1994--and during that time was acknowledged to be an unsurpassed academic authority in the area of contracts law. Professor Murphy held the first chaired law professor at Notre Dame and authored the legal textbook ``Studies in Contract Law'' which became the most widely used contracts textbook in the country. Mr. Speaker, for 37 years Professor Murphy taught every student who attended Notre Dame Law School. It was my honor and good fortune to have been one of those students. Professor Murphy taught me contracts, negotiable instruments, and bills and notes and directed a senior contracts seminar in which I participated. I have no hesitancy in saying that Professor Murphy was the most outstanding teacher I have ever had. He was hard working and dedicated and possessed an unsurpassed ability to communicate even the most arcane topics. He was admired and respected by every student who ever sat in his classroom. Mr. Speaker, Professor Murphy loved the law and he loved to teach. But what made Ed Murphy so unique was that his teaching transcended the classroom. He believed in values, in principles, and in ideals and he imparted them to his students in all that he taught. Professor Murphy believed in God and in his Catholic faith and never wavered when confronted by the forces of political correctness. As Notre Dame Law Professor Charles Rice noted, ``Professor Murphy uniquely integrated faith and morality with the law. What he taught is sorely needed by law students today.'' Mr. Speaker, Prof. Edward Murphy faced death as he lived his life-- with courage, with dignity and with faith in God. And now I would ask this House to pay its own tribute to a man who made such a profound impact on the lives of so many. Please join me as I express my regret at the loss of Edward J. Murphy, and my profoundest condolences to Mary Ann, his wife of 41 years, his 9 children, his 22 grandchildren, and to his entire family.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I particularly thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for the tremendous leadership he has shown on this key issue, both as chairman of the committee and as a Member of this body. Mr. Chairman, I think there are certain points that should be made very clear at the outset. First of all, this is not a partisan issue; it is not a Democrat or Republican issue. It is a human issue, a moral issue, and it is an issue behind which all men and women of goodwill must rally to resist the aggression of the Serbs. Second, there is no moral equivalency in this war. This is not a case of two nations who just happen to be fighting each other, any more than there was any moral equivalency between Nazi Germany and Czechoslovakia. We are talking about the democratically elected government in Bosnia being attacked by the brutal dictatorship in Serbia. For those Members who say the United States should not get involved, the tragic fact is we are involved and, whether we admit it, we are involved on the side of the Serbs, because we are embargoing the weapons that are going to the victims. As long as we continue to allow that embargo to exist, then we stand with the Serbs. Mr. Chairman, there are other foreign policy ramifications, apart from the moral issue here. If the aggression is allowed to go undeterred by the Serbs, we are going to provide greater instability in that region. This can be an encouragement to Russia to move on its former republics, when it sees that the Western World stays silent in the face of such aggression. Also, what kind of a message are we sending to the Moslem world? We have denounced genocide for the past 50 years. We realized that the world stood by and did nothing during World War II and we have said, ``Never again will we allow genocide to be carried out.'' Yet, there is genocide being carried out today against the Moslems and we are doing nothing about it. Apart from the moral ramifications, what does that do to our foreign policy posture in countries such as Iran, Iraq, Egypt? We can go through all the Moslem, Arab countries and see what that has done to damage our reputation. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I call for strong support of this bill. We have no choice. It is a moral imperative.

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz- Balart] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, this is an historic moment in the history of the House of Representatives, and it is important to keep our mind and our eye on the key issue, and the key issue is the right to a sovereign nation to defend itself, and it raises the issue of what we are to do in the post-cold war era. Is the United States going to continue to be an accomplice to a policy which deprives victims of the right to defend themselves? Speakers have raised the issue today, is this going to involve the United States? The fact is the United States is already involved. It is involved in a conspiracy to deny the most basic rights to the people of Bosnia. And what are we talking about? We are talking about aggression by the Serbs against the Bosnians. We are talking about mass rape against the people of Bosnia. We are talking about ethnic cleansing and genocide. This is ``Schindler's List'' of the 1990's, and what is the response of the Western World? Our response has been to look the other way, and worse than looking the other way, to put an embargo on those that want to defend themselves. I was in Bosnia several years ago with the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel]. I saw firsthand the atrocities being carried out against the innocent people of Bosnia, and we, as Americans, have a moral obligation to step forward and lift this embargo. There is no moral, or diplomatic, or military justification to continue this unjust embargo upon the people of Bosnia. Along with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] last week we met with the Prime Minister of Bosnia. Here is a man; all he is asking for for his people is not for American troops. He is asking for the right to defend himself, the most basic right, and if we do not have the courage today to cast the vote, and, by the way, I disagree that this is an easy vote. There is no easy vote when we are talking about war and peace. This is a very, very serious vote, and, if we have to cast votes in the future, they will be even more serious, but the fact is we cannot stand idly by while aggression goes unchecked. The Prime Minister of Bosnia, all he is asking for is the weapons to defend himself, to defend his people. That is a moral right that they have, and we, as signatories to the U.N. Charter, have to agree with that right. So I urge adoption of the rule and the bill, and I again stress to my colleagues what an historic moment this is to the House of Representatives.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the observance of the 25th anniversary of the arrests and beginning of the Leningrad Trials, the seminal event in the effort to rally support for the beleaguered and persecuted Jewish community in the Soviet Union. In remembering the Leningrad Trials, I also want to recognize one of my constituents, Lynn Singer, who has been a tireless advocate on behalf of Soviet Jewry and, more recently, a crusader against official and unofficial anti-semitism in the former Soviet Union. Lynn, as the longtime executive director of the Long Island Committee for Soviet Jewry [LICSJ], has developed an international reputation as a result of her persistence, determination and leadership in the cause of human rights and freedom. I am proud to be her Representative in the People's House and to have participated in LICSJ vigils, demonstrations and marches. I look forward to continuing to work with Lynn Singer in the weeks and months ahead. As many Members of this institution will recall, 25 years ago, a group of courageous young men and women from around the Soviet Union met to develop a plan to fly to freedom and realize the impossible dream of emigrating to the land of their choice. In spite of knowing the KGB had learned of their plans and that they faced severe penalties if they were apprehended, a few of these men and women bought tickets on a small commuter plane destined for Norway. Tragically, before even boarding the plane, Soviet police arrested each of them. Far from crushing the fledgling human rights movement in the Soviet Union, this event focused attention on the plight of Soviet Jewry and all those who wanted secure basic human rights for people behind the Iron Curtain. In response to the Leningrad Trials, organizations were formed in the United States to monitor human rights conditions in the U.S.S.R. and win the freedom of Jewish refusniks. This grassroots movement succeeded in keeping human rights an issue on the international stage and put enormous pressure on the Kremlin during periods of cold war, detente, the Reagan defense build-up, perestroika and, finally, the collapse of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. That is why we should take time today to remember the sacrifice of those who, at great risk to themselves and their loved ones, made a stand when things were the very bleakest--Anatoly Altman, Hillel Butman, Mark Dymshitz, Leib Khnokh, Edward Kuznitsov, Joseph Mendilovich, Boris Penson, Wulf Zulmanson, Israel Zalmanson and Sylvia Zalmanson, all living in Israel, and Yuri Federov and Aleksei Murzhenko, now living in the United States. I hope all in this chamber will join with me to make certain that the courage demonstrated in the winning struggle for freedom will never be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to again recognize the many good works and accomplishments of my constituent, Lynn Singer, as well as the many supporters of the LICSJ and all those in the United States and around the world who demonstrated their concern about prisoners of conscience in the U.S.S.R. since June 15, 1970. Thank you.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment. Iran is an outlaw state, the major destabilizing force in the Middle East, and is desperately attempting to obtain nuclear capability. I am proud I have been able to join my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], in sponsoring this amendment, amendment 49, which will establish on the record as a sense of Congress that Iran is an outlaw nation. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will go one step further than the President's boycott announcement of April 30, where the President announced a unilateral boycott against Iran. This was a very important first step but it is not enough. It is essential that all our allies join this embargo, and the sense of Congress resolution which is encompassed in amendment 49 will call upon the President to make the development of a multilateral economic embargo on Iran a major priority at the Halifax G-7 meeting. I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] for his support in working with me. I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking member, for their support, and I urge support of the en bloc amendment and indeed final passage of the entire bill.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate one of the most tragic events of the 20th century, and indeed, of all recorded history, the Armenian genocide. This year the world marks the 80th anniversary of the century's first calculated campaign of official mass murder. In 1915, the Ottoman Turkish Empire undertook a deliberately planned effort to exterminate the Armenian people. The Ottoman Turks were responsible for the deaths of more than one million Armenian men, women and children. This vicious campaign of genocide was only halted by the Ottoman Empire's defeat by the Allies in 1918. Unfortunately, the Armenian genocide has been largely forgotten by the people of the world. It has been reported that on the eve of the beginning of his ``Final Solution,'' Adolf Hitler cynically remarked that the world would stand by and allow him to murder the European Jews, because, he asked ``who today remembers the Armenians?'' Just as we remember the Holocaust, we must honor the memory of the victims of the Armenian genocide, so that future generations never forget these monumental crimes against humanity nor fail to realize the human potential for profound evil. In the first 80 years of this century, the world witnessed the Armenian genocide, Stalin's mass murder of the Kulaks and millions of political opponents, the Holocaust, the millions of dead in Mao's cultural revolution, and Pol Pot's liquidation of more than a million Cambodians. In our own time we have witnessed the ethnic cleansing of the Bosnian Moslems and the brutal tribal mass murders in central Africa. We must not disgrace the memories of the victims of the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide and this century's other countless victims of institutional mass murder by standing by and allowing the Bosnian Moslems to be exterminated as the killing begins anew in the former Yugoslavia. We must act to make the words, ``never again,'' a reality. We must stop history from once again repeating itself. I can think of no better way to commemorate the victims of the Armenian genocide.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. I have enough trouble with my own party. It is easier if I get it from Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] very much for his munificence. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, to be a real representative body what we need is a wide range of elected officials, but we should not be imposing our will on who those elected officials are. It should be the genius of the American people to decide that we need a person of experience like a Henry Hyde and we need a person like my good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Bob Inglis who is going to be gone in 3 years. But that is up to the people to decide, not for us to say who should be changed or who should not be changed. Let the American people decide that. They decided that in 1994 when they overwhelmingly rejected Democrats and elected Republicans. We are our own best argument against term limits.

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I will take the 30 seconds from Mr. Shays.

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in total opposition to term limits. I oppose term limits because they are undemocratic and because they represent the ultimate in elitism. For someone from some other part of the country to come to my district and tell my voters they cannot vote for me just because I happen to have been in office for 6 years or 8 years or 12 years is the ultimate insider mentality. They are saying that they know more than the average voter in the average district around this country. Perhaps in their districts people want to elect part-time farmers or barnyard philosophers. That is fine. Let them elect those people. Let them send them here to Congress. But my point is that it is up to each voter in each district to decide what person they want to elect to Congress. I must say that while it is very seldom that I agree with my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. retroactivity. My feeling is that we should only amend the Constitution if it represents an ultimate truth, something about which there can be no debate. For instance, the 13th amendment abolished slavery. Now, would those who favor term limits have followed the logic in the 1860's of saying, ``I am opposed to slavery, but I'm not going to free my slaves until the amendment is adopted'' or ``I'm going to continue being a slave holder because the 13th amendment isn't adopted yet''? Of course not. If it is wrong, if it is immoral, if it somehow tears away at our country not to have term limits, then lead by example--go home, because otherwise what you are saying is that this is just a political issue that we use to get elected. And as a Republican, I am very, very concerned about this entire pernicious pattern of pandering and posturing by Members who seem to have an unquenchable quest or an unquenchable thirst for self-flagellation. It is part of an overall pattern where they are denouncing everything about the Congress, denouncing being a politician, denouncing being a person committed to making change in government. My feeling or my strong belief is that those of us who say we want change, what we are really doing, those of us who support term limits are saying that the voters in the districts are not smart enough to elect the proper Members to Congress. and what could be more elitist, what could be more antidemocratic, what could be more of an inside-the- beltway mentality than to be denying the voters of individual districts the right to elect the Members of their choice? Just think, I say to the Republicans, my fellow Republicans, of some of the outstanding Members who would not have been elected if we had had term limits. The voters of Ohio would not have been allowed to reelect Robert Taft to his third term in the U.S. Senate. The voters of Illinois would not have been able to elect Everett Dirksen. The voters of Kansas would not have been allowed to reelect Robert Dole. And on the Democratic side, outstanding leaders such as Sam Rayburn would not have been allowed to return to Congress because someone in Washington said that it is wrong for the people in Texas or Ohio or Illinois to select the person they want to represent them in Congress. I am probably the last person in this body who could be accused of being an Anglophile. However, the point is made about Winston Churchill. He was a man who served over 40 years in the British Parliament. Are we saying it was wrong or that it was immoral for Winston Churchill to be in the Parliament at the time of World War II? Who among us would be better qualified? Would it have been that part- time farmer from some State? Would he have been a better Speaker? Maybe he would have, but let the voters in that district decide. Also one of the main arguments that we have used against Congress in our incessant campaigns against Congress has been the fact that staffs are too powerful. Nothing could make staffs more powerful than to have Members rotating in and out and having a permanent unelected body of staff deciding the legislation, deciding the procedures, deciding the process. I strongly believe that for a Congress to be effective we need a whole range of Members in this Congress. We need the institutional memory of someone like a Henry Hyde or a Joe Moakley.