Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the extraordinary talents and contributions of Howard J. Rubenstein. This evening, some two thousand government, civic, and corporate leaders will celebrate the 45th anniversary of Mr. Rubenstein's firm, Rubenstein Associates, Inc. Howard Rubenstein has been dubbed by Newsweek Magazine as the ``Dean of Damage Control'', one of America's foremost public relations consultants. His clients constitute a cross section of influential individuals and organizations, from Disney/ABC to novelist Danielle Steel, from the New York Yankees to the Duchess of York. Rubenstein's brilliance, insights, and innovative strategies have earned him great respect in the United States and around the world. Mr. Speaker, my profound admiration for Howard Rubenstein is a consequence not of his public relations skills, but rather of his passionate commitment to using his talents for the benefit of his community and his country. His public service has affected a sweeping range of civic and cultural priorities. Mr. Rubenstein is currently an advisor to the New York City Commission on the Status of Women, and he is a member of the City University of New York Business Advisory Board, the board of directors of the Center for Democracy, and the Inner-City Scholarship Fund of the Archdiocese of New York. Howard has also served on the Mayor's Committee on Business & Economic Development for New York Mayors Abraham Beame, David Dinkins, and Rudolph Giuliani, and he is currently a trustee of the Alliance for the Arts, the March of Dimes New York Chapter, the Central Park Conservancy, and the Police Athletic League. In an era when business leaders all too often fail to demonstrate a devotion to the needs of our society, Howard Rubenstein's contributions stand as a model for all others. Mr. Speaker, one particular episode stands out in my reflection upon Howard Rubenstein's service to his community. In 1991, the Brooklyn community of Crown Heights exploded in a chain reaction of violence, riots, and ever-mounting divisions between the area's African-American and Hasidic Jewish populations. These disputes divided the city and received national attention, emphasizing the difficulties of racial reconciliation. Responding to a request for his assistance from Mayor David Dinkins and other city leaders, Rubenstein undertook the difficult task of diffusing the tensions between African-Americans and Jews. He organized a ``Peace Conference'' in Crown Heights, and then planned a special ``Neighbor to Neighbor'' event at the Apollo Theater in Harlem. More than 1,300 people--both Jews and African-Americans-- viewed a showing of ``The Liberators,'' a film which depicts the liberation of Nazi concentration camps by African-American soldiers. The screening was broadcast live on New York television, while simultaneously 500 ``Neighbor to Neighbor'' meetings were held in homes and community centers around New York City to discuss race relations. Rubenstein's efforts were critical to restoring civility and understanding in Crown Heights, and I believe that they speak volumes about the character and commitment of this outstanding man. Howard Rubenstein has come a long way since 1954, when he founded Rubenstein Associates, Inc., working on the kitchen table at his parents' home. In honor of the 45th anniversary of this event and in recognition of the outstanding contributions that he has made to his community and our country, I urge my colleagues to join me in extending warmest congratulations and our most sincere appreciation to Howard J. Rubenstein.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this year in the United States some 20,000 new cases of primary brain tumors will be diagnosed, and more than 100,000 cases of cancer migrating to the brain from a different site will be found. Traditional treatment regimens of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation have not stopped the natural progression of the disease in far too many cases, and new therapies are desperately needed. Finding new treatments often means years of laboratory investigation, followed by both clinical trials and the examination of results, before such therapies can be deemed successful and made available to patients. Speeding up this process is of vital importance to innumerable cancer patients. With this in mind, friends and family of David B. Hermelin have pledged $10 million to launch a brain tumor research center at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit. Mr. Speaker, David Hermelin is the United States Ambassador to Norway, and earlier this year he was successfully treated for a brain tumor. Currently, he is undergoing therapy at the Henry Ford Hospital. The funds donated in his name will launch the Hermelin Brain Tumor Center, housed within the Department of Neurosurgery. The center will be directed by Mark L. Rosenblum, M.D., Chair of the Department of Neurosurgery, and by Tom Mikkelsen, M.D., of the Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery. ``The center at Henry Ford Hospital is now positioned to make a significant impact on this disease,'' said Dr. Rosenblum. ``With state- of-the-art technology for diagnosis and surgery, with continual ability to provide the most advanced surgery and treatments available, and with new discoveries from our research team, we are confident we will be able to change life-threatening brain tumors into a chronic, controllable disease like diabetes.'' The Hermelin Brain Tumor Center will support three main areas of novel investigation to help control brain tumors: (1) antiinvasion therapy (which stops a tumor from invading healthy brain tissues), (2) gene therapy (which uses scientifically engineered viruses which recognize and kill cancer cells), and (3) antiangiogenesis (which stops a tumor from building its network of blood vessels, effectively starving it). In addition, the Center will sponsor annual brain tumor workshops focusing on each of these three areas of research. Brain tumor scientists from around the world will be invited to share their knowledge and compete for a research grant, thus providing new ways to share novel findings and to use these findings to fund research that will bring new treatments to patients in the most rapid possible manner. Mr. Speaker, David Hermelin is an outstanding citizen of our Nation, and as United States Ambassador to Norway, he has made an important contribution to strengthening traditional good relations between our country and Norway. In addition, he is a leading philanthropist who has spearheaded major fund-raising efforts which have garnered millions of dollars for academic, medical, civic, religious and charitable organizations. The Hermelin Brain Tumor Center is a fitting and unique recognition of his generous contributions. I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Ambassador David Hermelin and recognizing the importance of the Hermelin Brain Tumor Center.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, in recent days, Jews around the world have celebrated the High Holy Days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. As these religious holidays have been commemorated, the Jewish community of San Francisco has marked a particular milestone--the 150th anniversary of the Jewish community of San Francisco. The contributions that its members have made to the civic, charitable, and economic well-being of the Bay Area are truly extraordinary, and the history of Jewish life in San Francisco merits both our attention and our admiration. Mr. Speaker, 150 years ago, during the brief interval between the Mexican-American War and the Civil War, pioneers and risk-takers from around the world descended upon San Francisco. These individuals represented every imaginable race and ethnic origin, united only by their desire to find gold in their mining pans and win an instant fortune. Some 100,000 fortune-seeking ``Forty Niners'' arrived in the Bay Area in the year after President James K. Polk announced the discovery of gold at Sutter's Fort in his State of the Union address in December 1848. Among the multitude drawn to San Francisco was a small number of Jews, some from the eastern states of our country and other from as far away as Poland, Prussia, and Bavaria. They joined the dynamic melting pot of people with a great diversity of backgrounds and views, and helped to create the uniquely diverse cultural life that flourishes in San Francisco to this day. In recognition of the critical contributions of the Jewish community to the City of San Francisco and to the entire Bay Area, I would like to place in the Record a September 10, 1999, article by Don Lattin of the San Francisco Chronicle which details the birth of Jewish life in the Bay Area 150 years ago. This article is part of a series of articles that have appeared over the past year in connection with the sesquicentennial of the discovery of gold in California and the events connected with California's accession to the Union in 1850 as the 31st state. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 10, 1999] San Francisco Jews' 150 New Years (By Don Lattin) San Francisco's Gold Rush brought adventure seekers and fortune hunters from around the world, and the ``Israelites,'' as they were called at the time, were no exception. One-hundred fifty years ago this month, 30 pioneer Jews from Poland, Prussia, Bavaria and the Eastern United States gathered in Lewis Franklin's tent store on Jackson Street to commemorate Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. Franklin, 29, had come to the booming town from Baltimore. In a prophecy that would come to pass for many Gold Rush immigrants, he read from the Book of Ecclesiastes: ``These shining baubles may lure the million,'' he read, ``but they will take unto themselves wings, and flee from thee, leaving thou as naked as when thou were first created.'' Those communal prayers, the first public Jewish worship service known to have been held in the West, led to the founding of San Francisco's two leading Reform movement synagogues, Congregation Emanu-El and Congregation Sherith Israel. Less than 2 years after that first citywide Rosh Hashanah, in April 1851, ethnic disputes and class differences had spawned rival houses of worship, with the more traditional Poles establishing Sherith Israel and the more liberal Germans founding Emanu-El. ``German Jews came from refined society. It was the height of European culture,'' said Rabbi Stephen Pearce, the current spiritual leader of Emanu-El. ``German Jews were more liberal and among the leading citizens of the city, people like Levi Strauss.'' This month, as both congregations begin a year-long series of mostly separate anniversary events, echoes of that Gold Rush rivalry remain. Differences in leadership styles and a recent price war over membership dues have replaced ethnicity and ancient arguments over Jewish ritual as the bones of contention. But Rabbi Martin Weiner, who has led Sherith Israel for 27 years, prefers to play down the differences and avoid discussing whatever rivalry remains. ``Every synagogue had slightly different traditions, but those divisions have faded,'' he said. ``Both have served the community well.'' This Sunday, on the second day of Rosh Hashanah, Weiner and Cantor Martin Feldman, a Sherith Israel fixture since 1960, will lead a traditional Rosh Hashanah service in the shadow of the TransAmerica Building. That is only a block from where the city's first Yom Kippur service was held, on Sept. 26, 1849, ending the city's first services for the High Holy Days. Actors in period costumes will be featured this Sunday, along with the traditional sounding of the shofar, or ram's horn. As it did for many of San Francisco's first religious congregations, fires and earthquakes kept the pioneer Jewish community on the move. Sherith Israel's first quarters, at Merchants Court on Washington Street between Montgomery and Sansome streets, was destroyed by the great fire of 1851, as was the congregation's next home on Kearny Street. The cornerstone of the congregation's present building at California and Webster streets was laid on Feb. 22, 1904. The interior of the landmark edifice, designed by Albert Pissus, retains an old world flavor with magnificent mahogany woodwork. Members of Congregation Emanu-El have worshiped beneath their graceful dome at Lake and Arguello streets since 1926, when they abandoned and razed their twin-towered synagogue on Sutter Street. That edifice, on the side of Nob Hill above Union Square, had towered over the city scape since 1866, even after it lost its two onion-shaped domes in the great 1906 earthquake. Congregation Emanu-El began its 150th anniversary celebration last month with an architectural exhibit, running through January 2, entitled ``Emanu-El--Image on the Skyline, Impact on the City.'' It brings together photographs, maps, drawings and blueprints to tell the tale of San Francisco's largest and most prosperous synagogue. In 1854, Julius Eckman was hired as the first rabbi to preside over Emanu-El's original house of worship, a neogothic synagogue built on Broadway for $35,000. A scholarly graduate of the University of Berlin, Eckman lasted only a year at the Reform-minded congregation. Many of Congregation Emanu-El's early members were Gold Rush merchants, including some who went on to establish great fortunes, like the Levi Strauss clothing empire. Jesse Seligman, the son of a poor Bavarian farmer, founded a dry goods business in San Francisco in 1859, using that as a springboard into international investment banking. Another Bavarian Jew who prospered as a Gold Rush merchant, 25-year-old August Helbing, arrived here from New Orleans in 1849. He founded the Eureka Benevolent Society, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary in its current incarnation, Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties. In founding the charity, Helbing sought to care for ``the Israelites landing here, broken in health or destitute in means.'' Indeed, the Gold Rush is full of stories about people going from rags to riches, and back to rags. In their book, ``Pioneer Jews--A New Life in the Far West,'' Harriet and Fred Rochlin tell the story of Morris Shloss, who docked in San Francisco on September 25, 1849, amid the first High Holy Day services. Shloss, a 20-year-old Polish merchant, made his first sale right on the dock. In New York, he had paid $3 for a large wooden box to carry his wagon with him to San Francisco. Keeping the wagon, he sold the box for $100 to a cobbler who wanted to use it as a workshop and bedroom. The enterprising Shloss used that money to buy stationery, reselling it at a makeshift stand for a handsome profit. He worked at night as a fiddler at the El Dorado, a gambling hall at Washington and Kearny, getting an ounce of gold, worth $16, for each three-hour gig. He soon managed to rent a tiny store next to the El Dorado for $400, where he bought trunks from miners eager to lighten their loads before heading up the gold fields. In just two months, he had earned between $5,000 and $6,000. Then, on Christmas Eve, he lost it all when a fire in an adjacent hotel leveled his store. Destitute, he sailed off to follow another purported Gold Rush outside Eureka, which turned out to be a hoax. He survived for four months on clams and crackers until a schooner brought him back to San Francisco. He started two more businesses in 1852 and 1853, both of which were destroyed by fire. His brother was killed in a shipwreck after coming out to help him. Nevertheless, Shloss started another business and soon made enough money to bring his fiancee to San Francisco. Most of the city's pioneer Jews, the Rochlins wrote, ``bore the imprint of centuries of European oppression: pogroms, expulsions, segregations, exploitative taxes and barred occupations.'' But in the wide-open West, they ``Americanized and regionalized with speed, energy and elan.'' ``Most Jews who responded to the glittering promises of the far western frontier and rose to its awesome obstacles were intrepid, resourceful and individualistic,'' the Rochlins write. ``For the most part, they were also literate, sober and drive to prove themselves.''

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2367--the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 1999. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. First, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to our distinguished colleague and my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, Congressman, Chris Smith. He has shown outstanding leadership on this issue, and I want to express my appreciation to him for the direction and focus he has given this important legislation. It is critical that we continue this program to provide assistance to the unfortunate individuals who have been victims of torture. I am pleased that our country has been in the forefront in providing assistance to those who suffer from these barbarous practices. Mr. Speaker, while it is unusual to provide in legislation authorizing funds in advance as this bill does, it is important to send the message that the Congress believes that a stable funding base is essential for these important programs to assist the unfortunate victims of torture. Mr. Speaker, this legislation authorizes a number of critically important domestic and international programs to provide relief to the victims of torture. The bill increases from $7.5 million to $10 million the annual authorization for the Agency for International Development (AID) to provide assistance to treatment centers and programs in foreign countries which deal with physical and psychological rehabilitation of victims of torture. The legislation also authorizes five million dollars in contributions to the U.N. Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture, an increase from the three million which is currently authorized. Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I hosted a reception here on Capitol Hill honoring Dr. Inge Genefke and the Center for the Victims of Torture. In 1979 Dr. Genefke established a clinic in her native Copenhagen, Denmark, which was the first such facility anywhere in the world devoted specifically to treating victims of torture. Now, I am happy to report, that facilities exist in a number of countries-- including several in our own country--which provide this kind of specialized medical care. It is very reassuring to see the progress that is being made in dealing with the tragic victims of repressive regimes which carry out or tolerate this horrendous violation of human rights. This legislation is important in our stand for human rights, Mr. Speaker, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strongest support for the efforts of our distinguished colleagues and my friends, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Congressman Barney Frank, and the gentleman from California, Congressman Tom Campbell, for their principled commitment to the sanctity of unfettered legislative debate. These two colleagues--one a Democrat and the other a Republican--acted quickly and responsibly by sending a letter to the President in the matter of Arizona State Representative Stephen May, who is facing possible discharge from the Army Reserves because he discussed his sexual orientation within a relevant context during an official debate in the Arizona House of Representatives. Like my colleagues, I find it absolutely intolerable that a duly elected States legislator should be punished by the military for appropriate comments which he made during the course of an official debate in the Arizona State Legislature. Taking action against a State representative for what he said in debate as elected legislator is a violation of the spirit of the ``speech and debate clause'' of the United States Constitution. The overwhelming majority of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, have strongly defended the democratic privilege of American legislators to speak freely, without having to fear that they will be prosecuted for comments they choose to make during official, public debate. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Frank and Congressman Campbell have written an eloquent defense of the principle of legislative debate to the President of the United States. I thank them both for their leadership on this issue, and I ask that the full text of their excellent letter by placed in the Record. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join in signing this excellent letter to the President. House of Representatives, Washington, DC Hon. William J. Clinton, President, The White House Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge you to honor the tradition of full and unfettered legislative debate in America by instructing the Defense Department to drop charges against State Representative Stephen May of Arizona. As you know, Representative May now faces potential discharge from the military because in his capacity as a member of the Arizona Legislature, during formal debate on legislative matters, he alluded to his sexual orientation in a context in which such an allusion was fully relevant. The signers of this letter have varying views on the merits of the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy regarding the military. But we do not write this letter as a commentary on that policy. Rather, we are writing because we as elected representatives believe strongly in that principle embodied in the ``speech and debate clause'' of the American Constitution which seeks to extend full protection to members of legislative bodies from any sanction for comments they legitimately make in the course of legislative debate. We recognize, of course, that the speech and debate clause does not technically apply to members of State Legislatures. If it did, presumably this letter would be unnecessary. But we do believe in the policy embodied in that clause--namely that only when elected legislators are confident of their ability to speak out freely without any fear of external sanction from outside the legislative body can the process of representative government flourish. As a student of Constitutional history, you know that this clause made its way into the United States Constitution in reaction to the harassment of members of the British Parliament that occurred in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. There was then a tradition of members of the House of Commons in particular suffering penalties for speaking freely in the course of legislative debate. Thus, the speech and debate clause as it is known says ``and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.'' The purpose of this is so that members of legislative bodies in fulfillment of their duty fully to represent their constituents need not fear that members of the Executive, or Judicial branches will penalize them for comments of which they disapprove. What is being proposed regarding Representative May is for the federal Executive Branch to punish an elected member of the Arizona State Legislature because of comments he chose to make that were fully relevant to a public policy debate in the legislature to which he was duly elected. We find it difficult to believe that you, as a believer in the importance of full legislative debate, would permit the Executive Branch over which you preside to punish an elected legislator for remarks made in the course of legislative debate. As we noted earlier, we realize that the Constitutional clause protecting Members of Congress does not apply to State Legislators. But obviously the justification for that clause--preserving full freedom of debate--applies very strongly. Indeed, we believe there is an added policy reason why you should not allow your Executive Branch to penalize Representative May for comments made in the course of legislative debate. That is the respect that the federal government ought to show for the democratic process within the states. The speech and debate clause says that no Members of Congress shall be made to answer ``in any other place''. Surely that applies with strong logical force to a situation in which the federal Executive Branch would reach down and take punitive action against an elected member of the Arizona Legislature. Certainly the Arizona Legislature ought to be considered by the federal Executive Branch competent to run its own affairs, and we believe that you will be setting a terrible precedent if you allow the military to go forward with its proposed against Representative May. While some have suggested that no Members of Congress, for example, should serve in the Reserves, that has not been our policy. The military clearly has strong views about many issues. And the general rule is that members of military are not to take issue with official policy. Are federal and state legislators who serve in the Reserves now to begin to censor their comments in relevant legislative debates lest they face sanctions imposed by the federal Executive Branch? As you know, Members of Congress have long treated the ``speech and debate clause'' as a matter of high Congressional privilege, embodying a principle essential to the functioning of our democracy. Our history is replete with examples of the overwhelming majority of both Houses of Congress, including the bi-partisan Congressional leadership of both Houses, coming to the defense of legislators who are faced with potential sanction for remarks which they made in debate, even in cases where the overwhelming majority of legislators strongly disagreed with the remarks in question. If Representative May is to be subjected to the severe sanction of expulsion from the military, where he has served with such distinction and without any negative marks on his record, the principle that legislators must be free from having to answer in any other place for comments they choose to make in public debate will have been more seriously eroded than in any other single instance that we can recall in recent times. We prepared to debate the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy among ourselves in our contexts. But here, we ask you to show the respect for unfettered legislative debate that has long been a hallmark of American democratic practice and drop any effort to punish a duly elected member of a state legislature for comments made during the course of debate.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 417, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999, and to oppose all of the cynical ``poison pill'' amendments that have been introduced to undermine support for this important legislation. H.R. 417 contains a number of essential reforms to our federal system of financial elections in our political system. Mr. Chairman, I commend our distinguished colleagues, my friend Mr. Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Mr. Martin Meehan of Massachusetts, for introducing this extremely important bill. The most significant provision of the Campaign Finance Reform Act would effectively ban unregulated ``soft money'' from our political process, abolishing once and for all this legal loophole through which hundreds of millions of dollars are poured into our national electoral process every election cycle. Soft money has made a mockery of our existing campaign finance laws, which are permitting big money interests to exert a massively disproportionate influence upon the selection of our nation's president, as well as congressman and senators. This is wrong and it must be stopped. The Campaign Finance Reform Act would also regulate sham issue ads, which are truly campaign expenditures. The use of such ``issue ads'' is a gaping hole in our election laws. This law would improve the disclosure and enforcement capabilities of the Federal Election Commission, and it would establish an independent commission to study further reforms that may be needed in order to help us make future necessary changes in our campaign finance system. Mr. Chairman, this same legislation was adopted by the House of Representatives during the 105th Congress with the overwhelming support of the American people. Despite the popular demand for reform, those members who are defending our hopelessly flawed campaign finance system continue to use ``Delay'' and obstruction tactics to undermine the prospects for the passage of H.R. 417. These opponents of comprehensive reform--unfortunately with the backing of the Republican leadership-- are sponsoring seven ``poison pill'' amendments to divide the coalition supporting the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. I urge my colleagues to reject these transparent gimmicks and to vote to restore American citizens' trust in the ``People's House.'' Our constituents deserve as much. Mr. Chairman, I submit an editorial from this morning's Washington Post which, I believe, effectively sets forth the strong case for the passage of H.R. 417. I urge all of my colleagues to give attention to this very thoughtful opinion. [From the Washington Post, Sept. 14, 1999] Yes to Campaign Finance Reform The House has what ought to be an easy vote today--``yes'' on campaign finance reform. The bill the reluctant Republican leadership has finally brought to the floor passed by a vote of 252 to 179 in the last Congress. Most of the same members are back. The need is, if anything, greater; they have no reason to renege. The modest measure, by Reps. Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan, seeks to halt only the most egregious of the fund- raising abuses that flourished in the last campaign. It would bar the use of the national party organizations to raise and spend, on behalf of their candidates, ``soft that the candidates are forbidden by law to raise and spend themselves.'' It seeks to limit the use of other, nominally independent organizations to raise and spend such money in the form of ``issue ads'' as well. The leadership, having been forced by threat of a discharge petition to let the bill on the floor, has sprinkled obstacles in its path. Ten amendments will be in order. They were carefully written to sound innocuous while either weakening the bill or poisoning it for Democrats who might then relieve the Republicans of responsibility by taking the lead in voting no. One purports to defend voter guides but, as written, would likely make all issue ads unassailable. One, of dubious constitutionality, would require candidates to raise half their contributions in their home states; its adoption would likely drive Democrats from low-income districts to reject the entire bill. Everyone understands this. The amendments should be voted down, as should the three substitutes that will then also be in order. They too are weaker than the bill. One, by Rep. Bill Thomas, is a deliberate nullity, the theory being that no one will bother to vote against. But if any of these passes, the underlying bill is dead. That too is well understood. The bill that passed last year was deflected by the Republican leadership in the Senate. This one faces similar resistance. It is a subject that, more than any other, causes hypocrisy to flower. The president, whose flagrant circumvention of the law in 1996 helped prompt the legislation, now takes the lead in supporting it. The Republicans, meanwhile, having spent the better part of the last Congress rightly denouncing his behavior, now block the bill that would outlaw it; they, it turns out, are the ones who profit most from the system they deplore. The parties are raising far more soft money in this cycle than they did in the last. The campaign finance law has pretty well ceased to exist, except on paper. Shays-Meehan would begin to restore it. That's what this vote is about.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, America lost one of its most prominent and honored patriots on August 14 when Lane Kirkland, the president of the AFL-CIO from 1979 to 1995, passed away. He devoted his life to advancing the interests of our nation's working families, and what he achieved has benefited millions of our country's citizens. Mr. Kirkland will long be remembered for reunifying the labor movement, welcoming the United Auto Workers, the Teamsters, and other major unions back into the AFL-CIO. He will also be remembered for his steadfast advocacy for civil rights. As a national labor leader during the 1960's, he rallied organized labor behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other anti-discrimination measures. He will also be remembered fondly for his passion as a self-professed ``pure and simple and unreconstructed'' supporter of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, one who believed in the responsibility of government to help create hope and opportunity for those less fortunate. The influence of Lane Kirland's convictions, however, did not stop at America's borders. He fought for freedom and human rights around the world, and future generations will long remember him as a man who helped create the first cracks in the Iron Curtain. Throughout his half-century in the leadership of the AFL-CIO, Kirkland never shied away from his principal belief that the labor movement must not ignore the struggles of its oppressed counterparts abroad. He placed the full weight of America's unions behind condemnation of racist apartheid in South Africa and opposition to dictators in Cuba, Chile, and China. Kirkland forcefully and decisively undermined the Marxist claims of Fidel Castro and Leonid Brezhnev to the sympathies of the world's workers. He sent a message to the peoples of the world that America's working men and women would fight against any form of totalitarianism and repression. Kirkland's actions ensured that this message would not be ignored. During the early 1980's, a small collection of shipyard workers in Gdansk, Poland, courageously organized in opposition to their Communist government. During the course of that decade, the Solidarity labor movement under the leadership of Lech Walesa grew to embody the desires of the Polish people for freedom and democracy, and it brought Polish society together in the successful effort to topple an unjust dictatorship. The unwavering support of Lane Kirkland for Solidarity provided enormous assistance to the movement and added to its strength at a critical time when the Polish Communist leadership sought to stamp it out. At Kirkland's direction, the AFL-CIO channeled money, organizers, machines, and other assistance to Walesa's foot soldiers. At the end of the decade-long struggle the Polish dictatorship collapsed, and Walesa became Poland's democratically elected president. As Henry Kissenger noted, ``The success of Solidarity owes a lot to Lane.'' Mr. Speaker, in 1994 Lane Kirkland's extraordinary contributions were recognized by President Bill Clinton, who awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his commitment to democracy and human rights around the world. President Clinton's words about Mr. Kirkland are both moving and accurate: ``Throughout the Cold War, when some leaders saw only the threats to our freedom overseas and neglected the barriers to freedom and inequality within our own land, Kirkland showed America that you can stand up to communism abroad just as forcefully as you can stand up for working men and women here at home.'' Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in offering condolences to Lane Kirkland's widow, Irena, and to his children and grandchildren. It is most appropriate, that we honor and pay tribute to this outstanding leader. Lane is a credit to the American labor movement, as well as a credit to all who fight for human rights and civil liberties both here in America and around the world.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation we are considering, but I want to broaden my comments to deal for a few moments with our overall relations with Russia. Last week I was in Moscow for a lengthy and substantive discussion with the foreign minister of Russia and for a meeting with the Diplomatic University, which trains the future diplomats of Russia. I think it would be a very serious mistake if we would engage over the course of the next few months in bashing Russia which, in point of fact, with all of their problems, they have made enormous achievements since the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Now, all of us wish that the evolution of Russia that we have seen this past decade would have been more smooth, would have been more democratic, would have been more friendly to our interests. But I think the fact remains that Russia is about to have free and open parliamentary elections; next year, free and open presidential elections. Every Russian has a passport, they are anxious for American investment, and they are along many lines working with us as a country ready to share with us some international responsibilities as they did in Kosovo. Now, I think it is extremely appropriate that this piece of legislation deal with placing penalties on Russian institutions that engage in proliferation of weapons and mass destruction technology. But I think it is equally important to keep the problem in perspective. There is an enormous amount of anti-Americanism that permeates Russian society today. This was a society which, 15 years ago, was one of the two super powers on the face of this planet. It is now a destitute, chaotic, Mafia-infested society with enormous material and psychological problems; and I think it is extremely critical that in properly criticizing them for things that they do wrong, and they have done wrong by not controlling the proliferation of weapons, we do not draw the general conclusion that we are going back again to an era of confrontation with Moscow. There are powerful democratic forces in Moscow. There are important political figures who share our values, and it is important to strengthen the democratic forces in Russia. It is extremely important that we continue strengthening the democratic forces in Russia, because I predict in 10, 15, or 20 years, Russia will again be a great power. Their resources are unlimited. They are a highly talented, well- educated, impressive quality of people, and I think it is absolutely in our national interests to recognize our overriding concern in developing more cordial, more friendly, more ongoing relations with the people of Russia. We should also not forget that the Russian Government is facing terrorism from Islamic fundamentalists. In the last 10 days, there were four explosions, taking the lives of hundreds of innocent Russian civilians in the heart of Moscow, in the very heart of Moscow. These people deserve our support, our friendship, and our cooperation; and I call on my colleagues to give it to them.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to Charles F.C. Ruff, who left his position as White House Counsel earlier this summer. His exemplary record merits the commendation and thanks of all Americans who admire his commitment to justice and public service. While most Americans recognize Charles Ruff from his key role in the Senate impeachment trial earlier this year, his brilliant career in public service began over three decades ago. A graduate of Swarthmore College and Columbia University Law School, Ruff accepted a position with the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the Justice Department in 1967. His commitment to representing the public interest was complemented by his solid legal skills, and during the 1970's Ruff rapidly became one of the most highly-regarded and influential attorneys in Washington. As the Special Prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, he effectively tried and convicted those members of President Nixon's administration who broke our nation's laws and violated the public trust. In recognition of his numerous achievements, President Jimmy Carter appointed Charles Ruff to a senior position in the Department of Justice and later appointed him to the position of United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. In this latter post, Ruff supervised cases against two Members of Congress in the Abscam bribery case, as well as the government's prosecution of John W. Hinckley, Jr., the attempted assassin of President Ronald Reagan. Charles Ruff turned to the private practice of law in 1982 and achieved extraordinary professional success as a partner with the Washington, D.C., law firm of Covington & Burling. Entering the private sector, however, not erode his desire to utilize his talents for the public good. In 1995 Ruff left private legal practice to accept a position at a far more modest annual salary, as Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia. His two years in this post earned him the admiration of his peers, as well as the notice of another attorney, who happened to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In early 1997, Charles Ruff accepted President Bill Clinton's invitation to serve as White House Counsel. His duties during the past two and a half years have proven as diverse as they have been complex, ranging form policing White House ethics to providing the President with sound advice on critical constitutional issues. Mr. Ruff has handled these responsibilities with unequaled skill, impressing colleagues and White House observes with this attention to duty and his unshakeable integrity. Earlier this year, Ruff led the President's successful defense against impeachment charges in the United States Senate. An island of cool-headed statesmanship in the midst of political charges and countercharges, Ruff received plaudits from allies and opponents alike for his well reasoned and respectful arguments. As the Washington Post (June 10, 1999) noted after the trail: ``Ruff was widely respected by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress as a lawyer who doggedly defended his client but didn't engage in personal attacks or media ploys.'' When he appointed Charles Ruff to the position of White House Counsel, President Clinton explained his choice in very precise terms. ``The job of Counsel to the President requires an individual with a rare combination of intelligence, judgement, knowledge, experience, stature and legal skill. That is a perfect description of Charles Ruff.'' Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. I invite my colleagues to join me in commending Charles Ruff for his outstanding contributions to our nation and to the American people.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, Genentech, Inc. of South San Francisco, California, is known around the world for its leadership in the field of biotechnology. Throughout the past two decades this innovative company has shattered barrier after barrier, using revolutionary science to develop and manufacture biotech products that have saved an untold number of lives. Genentech created the first pharmaceutical based on DNA technology (recombinant human insulin) and was the first company to bring a bioengineered medicine from research to the market (a recombinant human growth hormone). Its medicines have provided immense benefits to individuals suffering from breast cancer, non- Hodgkins lymphoma, cystic fibrosis, and a wide range of other diseases. With this record of groundbreaking success, Genentech has richly earned its international reputation for excellence. The twenty-first century character of this outstanding company, however, extends well beyond its innovative products. Genentech's biotechnology leadership is mirrored in its devotion to corporate citizenship and to the welfare of its employees. Recognition of this commitment is found in the October 1999 issue of Working Mother magazine, which named Genentech one of the ``100 Best Companies for Working Mothers.'' This is the ninth time Genentech has made this impressive list. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Arthur D. Levinson, Ph.D., clearly expresses the corporate philosophy which resulted in Working Mother's commendation: ``At Genentech, we believe that creating a work environment that is responsive to our employees' needs is one of our most important priorities.'' This creed is epitomized by the company's Second Generation program, one of America's largest corporate- sponsored, on-site child care facilities. Operated by Bright Horizons Family Solutions and accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children, Second Generation attends to the needs of Genentech employees' sons and daughters with dedication and warmth. It provides hundreds of youthful participants (aged 6 weeks to 6 years of age) with quality care, developmental activities, play curriculum, daily activity reports and parental support. Mr. Speaker, Second Generation's forward-thinking approach is only one of the benefits for which Working Mother cited Genentech. The company offers important family-friendly benefits such as paid maternity leave for new moms, paid sabbaticals, and an employee concierge service. Genentech's willingness to invest in the well-being of its employees is truly extraordinary, and I am proud to have such a fine corporation in my congressional district. Genentech's corporate citizenship betters the lives of Peninsula communities and our country as well as its employees in many ways, in addition to its efforts to help working moms. Under Dr. Levinson's guidance, this fine company has repeatedly demonstrated that innovative growth and compassionate concern for employees can flourish together. Genentech has established uninsured patients' programs to enable underprivileged Americans to obtain every one of its marketed products, supplying more than $200 million worth of medications since the program was created. To help our nation's youth better understand the latest scientific advances, Genentech developed the Access Excellence web site to aid biology teachers and their students. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Genentech, Inc., on its outstanding benefits for working mothers and for its exceptional record of service to its community.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, at a time when the leaders of this country should rise up and speak out in favor of the family and commitment, it is a disgrace to our common sense that our nation and in particular our Department of Defense, continues to persecute gay Americans who espouse these values. Though millions of law-abiding, tax-paying gay Americans honor the tradition of family by honoring their unions to each other, they consistently see their efforts rewarded by a rhetoric that is seemingly aligned with their commitment to these values and yet is used as a tool to alienate them from this society and deny them their most basic rights. Recently, Arizona State Representative Steve May added a heroic voice to those calling for full civil rights for gay Americans by refusing to accept the bigotry and prejudice inherent in the movement to strip away domestic partner benefits for gay couples. During debate in the Arizona State House of Representatives on legislation barring Arizona counties from offering domestic partner benefits, Mr. May bravely spoke out against the legislation and told his fellow legislators that he was gay and that he would not tolerate discrimination against gay families. Representative May is a member of the Army Reserve and a former active duty soldier. After acknowledging in the debate that he loves and shares his life with another man, the Army has initiated an effort to remove him from the military. Mr. Speaker, what hypocrisy! At a time when our nation's military is being forced to lower its standards in order to maintain force levels, we are expelling from the military highly talented and experienced individuals who want to serve our nation. Mr. Speaker, the New York Times last Sunday (September 5, 1999) published an Editorial Observer column by Brent Staples which eloquently places the experience of Steve May in a suitable context and appropriately denounces the injustice of attacks on gay women and men in this country. I urge my colleagues to read this excellent piece and to join me in ending the injustice of protecting some families while harming others. Mr. Speaker, I submit the column by Brent Staples commending Steve May and his stance on domestic partner benefits in The New York Times to be placed in the Record. [From the New York Times, Sept. 5, 1999] Why Same-Sex Marriage is the Crucial Issue (By Brent Staples) The civil rights movement had made spectacular gains in the courts--including Brown v. Board of Education--before Rosa Parks galvanized public opinion in a way that lawsuits had not. Ms. Parks became an emblematic figure when she was arrested in Montgomery, Ala., for refusing to sit in the ``colored only'' section of a bus. The sight of this dignified woman being denied the simplest courtesy because she was black crystallized the dehumanizing nature of segregation and rallied people against it. Racism began to wane as white Americans were introduced to members of the black minority whom they could identify as ``just like us.'' A similar introduction is underway for gay Americans, but the realization that they are ``just like us'' has yet to sink in. When it finally does, the important transitional figures will include State Representative Steve May, a 27-year-old Republican from Arizona. Mr. May is a solid conservative who supports issues like vouchers and charter schools. He was raised a Mormon and recalls himself as the kid who ``had to go out and bring in the wayward souls.'' He is also a former active-duty soldier and an Army reservist, whose record shows that he could have moved up swiftly and been given a command. But Mr. May is about to be hounded out of the Reserve for publicly admitting he loves and shares his life with another man. This acknowledgment came last winter during a heated exchange in the Arizona Legislature over a bill that would have barred counties from offering domestic-partner benefits, stripping them from gay couples who currently enjoy them. Mr. May could have sat quietly, protecting his career. Instead he exposed the provision as bigoted and told the Arizona House: ``It is an attack on my family, an attack on my freedom. . . . My gay tax dollars are the same as your straight tax dollars. If you are not going to treat me fairly, stop taking my tax dollars. . . . I'm not asking for the right to marry, but I'd like to ask this Legislature to leave my family alone.'' When Rosa Parks declined to yield her seat on that bus, she was telling Alabama that she was not just a colored person, but a human being who deserved the respect and protection of the law. Mr. May's words in the Arizona House were similarly clarifying. Fearful of a backlash, gay politicians rarely mention their mates in public--and shy away from speaking of them in terms that might disturb even constituents who know that they are gay. But by framing his argument in the context of ``the family,'' Mr. may disarmed his bigoted colleagues and took the debate on same-sex unions exactly where it needed to go. When Mr. May's comments became public, the Army Reserve began an investigation that legal experts say will certainly end in discharge. Lieutenant May will then become a casualty of ``don't ask, don't tell,'' which ended more than 1,100 military careers in 1998, on the grounds that homosexuals who reveal the fact are no longer fit to serve. This is a staggering loss at a time when the armed services are canvassing strip malls and lowering entrance requirements to find personnel. By the time this policy is abandoned, thousands of talented Americans will have been lost to a purge that will come to be recognized as contrary to the public good and morally wrong. Republicans began the 1990's refusing campaign contributions from gay organizations and demonizing homosexuals for political gain. But in the race for 2000, the most prominent candidates are accepting the money and say that they would hire gay workers as long as they refrained from pressing ``a gay agenda''--a code phrase for keeping quiet about issues of same-sex intimacy, up to and including marriage. The trouble with this approach is that legitimacy for same-sex unions is the heart of the matter. By denying that legitimacy, we declare gay love less valid than heterosexual love and gay people less human. We cut them off from the rituals of family and marriage that bind us together as a culture. The legislator who wished to revoke benefits from same-sex partners in Arizona viewed those partnerships as culturally alien and morally illegitimate. The military establishment may force Mr. May out of the service--despite an exemplary record--because his family consists of two men who are indistinguishable from their neighbors, except that they sleep together. This persecution finds a parallel in statutes that made it illegal for blacks and whites to get married up until 1967, when the Supreme Court declared the laws unconstitutional. The laws were based on the primitive belief that blacks and whites were set apart on the tree of life by God Himself. Interracial couples were initially seen as a threat to the social order and to the institution of marriage. Over time, the culture began to discard the filter of race, viewing the couples as ``just like the rest of us.'' The same process will probably work out for same-sex couples--but only after an extended battle. When the matter is settled, historians will look back at people like Steve May, who declined to go quietly to the back of the American bus.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in commending the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco for their adoption of a resolution, which was unanimously adopted on Monday, urging that Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) refrain from purchasing steel rails produced by strikebreakers at Oregon Steel's Rocky Mountain Steel Mill in Pueblo, Colorado. This principled action reflects the Supervisors' deep concern for the safety of Bay Area public transport consumers, as well as their commitment to defending fair labor practices in San Francisco and across our nation. The Rocky Mountain Steel Mill in Pueblo, Colorado, illegally replaced 1,100 striking steelworkers in 1997. This outrageous and illegal action is only the most recent in a long record of that company's reckless disregard for the welfare of its own employees. This rogue corporation has been charged by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with over 100 violations of federal laws, and has been found guilty by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of 62 willful and serious health violations, resulting in the second largest OSHA fine in the history of the State of Colorado. Communities have both the right and the obligation to expect higher standards of conduct from the entities that do business with them. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Supervisors' request that BART refuse to purchase rails for the San Francisco Airport expansion project from the Rocky Mountain Steel Mill. This vital transportation project cuts through the heart of my congressional district, and I strongly believe that the safety of my constituents should not be put at risk by the shoddy work of inexperienced strikebreakers and the corporate recklessness of Rocky Mountain's executives. Since the decision to terminate its workforce eighteen months ago, Rocky Mountain Steel has reportedly encountered serious quality problems with its manufactured products. Under no circumstances should the well-being of BART's hundreds of thousands of regular commuters be jeopardized by this corporation's careless and irresponsible behavior. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the initiative taken by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to urge BART to end its purchases of Rocky Mountain Steel. The company's striking steelworkers deserve better, and the safety of Bay Area commuters demands no less.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on July 23, His Majesty King Hassan II of Morocco passed away and his son, Sidi Mohammad ben Al Hassan assumed the throne of Morocco. I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to a particularly thoughtful and insightful essay on the role of King Hassan and his positive impact upon Morocco. The essay--``The Passing of Morocco's King Hassan II''--was written by Dr. John Duke Anthony, the president of the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, secretary-treasurer of the U.S.-Gulf Cooperation Council Corporate Cooperation Committee, and a distinguished American scholar of Middle Eastern affairs. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Dr. Anthony's essay be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to reflect upon his discerning appreciation of the role and significance of the reign of King Hassan II. The Passing of Morocco's King Hassan II (By Dr. John Duke Anthony) In the history of America's foreign affairs, a long-running chapter with Morocco, one of our country's oldest and most important allies, closed and a new one opened this past week. The King of Morocco, the first country to recognize the fledgling U.S. republic during the Administration of President George Washington, was laid to rest. As anticipated, accession to the kingship of King Hassan II's eldest son and Heir Apparent, the 36-year old Moulay, now King, Mohammad VI, proceeded smoothly and effectively. Also as expected, no significant changes in Morocco's domestic and foreign policies are envisioned at this time. What, if anything, are the implications for American and other international interests in the passing of Africa's and one of the Arab and Islamic world's longest-serving heads of state? At first glance, the most important certainty is the certainty that key Moroccan policies are likely to continue as before. In this, for the many who have applauded some of the routes less traveled that Morocco chose to traverse for the past decade--in the areas of constitutional reform, economic liberalization, political pluralism, advancement of human rights, the pursuit of a just and durable peace between Arabs and Israelis--there is comfort. For those who pray and plot for the quicker rather than later passing of hereditary systems of governance--for the demise of the Arab and Islamic world's emirs, shaikhs, sultans, and monarchs--their day, certainly with regard to Morocco, appears to be no nearer to hand than before. Indeed, a case can be made that, in large measure because of the timeliness, relevance, and overall popularity of the late King's reforms, the imminence of the Moroccan monarchy's political demise is even more distant than it was when Hassan II succeeded his father as King of Morocco in 1960. To say this is but to underscore the extent to which the Middle East has become so topsy-turvy within the adult lifetime of a single person: the late King of Morocco. Had Hassan II lived and chosen to speak his mind on the subject, it's likely that he would have agreed with Diogenes, who is alleged to have requested that he be ``buried with my fact to the ground, for in no time at all the world will likely be upside down.'' There are ironies here. For one, search any library on the Middle East from the mid-1950s onward, and the work of one political science author to the next will be shown as having predicted with a certainty bordering on arrogance that, in short order, all the Arab world's dynasts would be overthrown, blown away as so many will-o'-the-wisp dandelions into the dust. Conventional wisdom of the day postulated that the wave of the future belonged to the Nasirists and their camp followers from Morocco to Muscat, from Baghdad to Berbera, from Aden to Algiers and Aleppo in between. Pundits prognosticated that the coming generation, nowadays' nineteen nineties--yesterday's tomorrow--would be led not by Hassan II and his dynastic counterparts, or anyone else whose lot was hereditary, but, rather, by the proverbial middle class military officer, the khaki-clad knight on horseback. But, in Morocco, as elsewhere in the Arab world, this was not to be. That it proved not to be the case was in large measure because Hassan II was not bereft of equestrian political skills of his own. That those who sought to precipitate the late King's political demise failed in the end was not, however, for lack of trying. Twice, in 1970 and again in 1971, they came close to succeeding. Nor, for that matter, can it be said that they truly failed. Indeed, the King's opponents can claim credit for having quickened his conscience andcommon sense to realize Morocco's national interests dictated that he institute sweeping constitutional, political, economic, and human rights reforms. Few developing countries have traveled as far and as fast in reforming the underpinnings and trappings of its economy and socio-political system as Morocco in the last decade of the late King's reign. In the past few years, a steady stream of American leaders have become eye-witnesses to the ongoing implementation of a range of economic and political reforms launched during the era of Hassan II. Together with Tunisia, Morocco has been a pacesetter in embracing the economic precepts of globalization and in forging a multi-faceted trade and investment relationship with the member-states of the European Union. In heightening their awareness of the opportunities for American businesses in the ``new Morocco,'' U.S. Congressional Representatives and staff have not been far behind. In March 1999, 110 Members of Congress signed a ``Congressional Friends of Morocco'' letter to President Bill Clinton. Shortly afterwards, First Lady Hillary Clinton visited Morocco, Egypt, and Tunisia. In keeping with this momentum, Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Stuart Eizenstadt visited the region and articulated a vision of enhanced foreign investment, liberalized trade arrangements, and regional economic cooperation between the U.S. and three Maghreb nations-- Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. It is too soon to gauge the full measure of the legacy that Hassan II bequeathed to his son and the Moroccan people. However, beyond the fact that the baton of national leadership has been passed to the new king, Mohammad VI, and with it the task of governing one of the developing world's most fascinating and important countries, there is much else of interest and value for Americans and others to ponder. Consider for a moment the following. Morocco is a country that is at once African, Arab, Maghrebian, Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, and Islamic. Its international strategic importance is underscored by its coastal frontage and twenty ports on two of the world's largest and most fabled seas. Moreover, Morocco's geography and natural resource base-- with its mountains, valleys, rivers, trees, and verdant fields--are as variegated as any in the developing world. Its people are the heirs of an extraordinarily rich culture and heritage that, long before we became an independent nation, had links to our own. Within Morocco's archives, and continuing to this day in the country's international relations, is abundant and ongoing evidence of a record of friendship with the United States and the American people that, among the world's politics, is second to none. The implications of the change in Morocco's leadership for American national interests are that the U.S. needn't change any of its policies toward this oldest among contemporary Arab kingdoms. They are to underscore the value of Morocco's having stood by the U.S.--and the U.S. having stood by Morocco--throughout the Cold War and after, and our joint commitment to remain each other's ally in the future. They are to take heart in the realization that, if anything, the new King, who is no stranger to the United States and American values, is likely to work even harder at strengthening the U.S. Morrocco relationship. The implications of the smooth and effective passing of the mantle of leadership from father to son, as had been envisioned all along, were encapsulated in the act of Presidents Clinton and Bush walking with other heads of state behind the King's coffin on the day of his funeral. They lie in the predictability of continued American national benefit from the leadership of a ruling family that, from the time of Eisenhower's visit to Morocco in the midst of World War Two, straight through until the present, has never buckled when the going got rough. They lie in the agreement of American and Moroccan foreign affairs practitioners on the ongoing relevance of a leader with the courage to act upon her or his convictions. In Hassan II, the world was blessed with a visionary and dedicated leader who never shied from tackling the controversial issue of Middle East peace. Longer than any other living Muslim leader, the late king, always far from the limelight, generated an immense amount of trust and confidence among Arab and Jew alike. In the end, Hassan II will be remembered for many things. Among them, not least will be the fact that, for more than a quarter of a century, he worked tirelessly at nudging, but never shoving, the protagonists much nearer to an enduring peaceful settlement than would have been likely had he, and now his son, upon whom the burden falls to continue the effort, not passed our way.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in urging the adoption of H.R. 1152, the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999. I want to pay tribute to my distinguished colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his leadership in introducing this legislation. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. The Silk Road Strategy Act deals with a number of newly-emerging countries, which only recently became independent nations--the Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan and the Southern Caucasus republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this legislation calls for the United States to give greater attention to the important countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus. We have significant national concerns in this region related to our national security and our international economic interests. These countries were part of the former Soviet Union, and we have a great interest in fostering democracy, an open market economy, and respect for human rights there. Many of these countries are resource- rich, and we likewise have a strong interest in assuring that oil, gas, and other natural resources are developed and are available on the world markets through free and fair international trade. We have a strategic interest in seeing that these areas do not become hotbeds of armed conflict, terrorism or drug trafficking. These countries are located in a difficult neighborhood--the adjacent countries include Iran, Afghanistan, and China. In this area are a number of serious ethnic conflicts and unresolved political differences which could lead to bloodshed and instability. We need only remember, Mr. Speaker, that in this region we have already seen serious strife in Nagorno-Karabakh and Abkhazia, which have resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of lives and the creation of hundreds of thousands of refugees. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1152 authorizes and urges that we provide humanitarian assistance, as well as help for economic development and the development of democratic institutions. These countries are already eligible for other forms of U.S. assistance, but we can and should be doing more. I would also note, Mr. Speaker, that the Administration is currently pursuing many of the policy lines that are called for in this bill, and I commend the Administration for its efforts in this regard. I support this legislation because it helps to focus attention on this important region and urges our government to make a greater effort to help solve regional conflicts, promote regional economic development, and further the development of democracy. Mr. Speaker, I do want to express my support for an amendment adopted during the markup of this legislation in the International Relations Committee. American companies and firms from other OECD nations have made substantial direct investments in ``Silk Road'' countries, but they are not being accorded fair treatment. In some cases investment contracts are not being honored, export permits are not being issued, and de facto rationalizations of foreign investment have taken place. In several instances, formal complaints have been lodged by investors through embassies of the United States and other countries. In order to discourage this kind of mistreatment, the International Relations Committee amended the legislation to include language conditioning U.S. assistance on the fair treatment of foreign investors. Specifically, the amendment requires recipient governments to demonstrate ``significant progress'' in resolving investment and other trade disputes that have been registered with the U.S. Embassy and raised by the U.S. Embassy with the host government. I cosponsored this amendment in Committee and I support its inclusion in the bill, Mr. Speaker, because without it the Silk Road Strategy Act could lead countries in this region to conclude that they have a green light to renege on commitments to foreign investors, jeopardizing hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign investments. The inclusion of this amendment should send a strong signal that countries cannot expect to receive American assistance if they mistreat the companies that provide critical investment capital and employment opportunities for their own citizens. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1152, the Silk Road Act of 1999.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on July 23, His Majesty King Hassan II of Morocco passed away and his son, Sidi Mohammad ben Al Hassan, assumed the throne of Morocco. King Hassan II reigned over the Kingdom of Morocco for thirty-eight years after succeeding his father as monarch on March 3, 1961. Under his leadership Morocco has undergone a significant transformation. King Hassan fostered the evolution of a more democratic constitutional government, encouraged tolerance for ethnic and religious minorities in Morocco, and made measurable improvement in respect for human rights. Mr. Speaker, in the area of foreign policy, King Hassan played an important role personally in advancing the Middle East peace process. He was instrumental in bringing together leaders of Israel and the Arab states on a number of different occasions. It is significant that in September 1993 Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres stopped in Morocco to thank King Hassan on their return to Israel from Washington, D.C., following the signature of the Oslo Accords on the South Lawn of the White House. The relationship between Morocco and the United States has flourished under the leadership of King Hassan. Our association with Morocco are long and friendly, having begun in 1777 when Morocco was one of the first nations formally to recognize the Government of the United States of America. Ten years later, in 1787, our two countries negotiated a Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which was the first such treaty concluded by our young nation. The unique relationship of our countries was strengthened and deepened under the leadership of King Hassan. Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleagues join me in extending my deepest condolences to the Moroccan people on the passing of King Hassan and also in extending to Crown Prince Sidi Mohammed ben Al Hassan our congratulations on his accession to the throne. I wish the new King well as he assumes the awesome responsibility for the welfare and well-being of the Moroccan people.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, with 126 of our distinguished colleagues, I am a cosponsor of the bill, H.R. 325, which was introduced by our colleagues Congressman David Bonior and Democratic Leader Richard A. Gephardt. Our legislation would raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.65 on September 1, 1999, and from $5.65 to $6.15 on September 1, 2000. An identical bill has been introduced in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, the present minimum wage is a poverty wage. A single mother, with two children, working at minimum wage earns thousands of dollars less than the poverty level. You just cannot raise a family on $5.15 an hour. As Barbara Ehrenreich said in an essay entitled ``The High Cost of Low Wages'' which appeared in America @ Work: ``Even in an economy celebrating unequaled prosperity, a person can work hard, full-time or even more, and not make enough to live on, at least if she intends to live indoors.'' It is essential that we increase the minimum wage, Mr. Speaker, in order to prevent further erosion of the purchasing power of low-wage workers. An increase in the minimum wage will serve as an important means for people to gain independence from government income support programs. It will boost worker morale and increase worker productivity. Mr. Speaker, we can afford to increase the minimum wage--and now is the time to do it. Our nation has now experienced the longest peacetime expansion in our country's history. The unemployment rate has fallen to 4.4%, the lowest rate in a generation. Inflation remains extremely low. Based on recent studies, there would be no adverse effects on employment or job opportunities with the implementation of the proposed increases in the minimum wage. The 1996-1997 increase of the minimum wage serves as an example of the effect of such an increase upon our economy. Two months after the 1997 increase the national unemployment rate actually dropped one full percentage point. Raising the minimum wage is good for the economy. The extra money gets spent at the grocery store, at the hardware store, and throughout the local community. Mr. Speaker, approximately, ten to twelve million Americans will benefit from this legislation. Minimum wage workers are a significant part of our workforce. Over half of these workers are women. Almost three-fourths are adults. Half of those who will benefit from this bill work full-time, and 80% of them work over twenty hours per week. They are providers of child care. They are teachers' aides. They are single heads of households with children. These are hard-working people who deserve a fair living wage. Barbara Ehrenreich, the author of over a dozen books on politics and society, authored a particularly good essay on the consequences of the low wages and the implications of increasing the minimum wage--``The High Cost of Low Wages''--which appeared in the AFL-CIO publication America @ Work. Mr. Speaker, her article is particularly insightful. I urge my colleagues to read Ms. Ehrenreich's article, and I urge them to support the adoption of H.R. 325. The High Cost of Low Wages Last summer I undertook an unusual journalistic experiment: I set out to see whether it is possible to live on the kind of wages available to low-skilled workers. I structured my experiment around a few rules: I had to find the cheapest apartment and best-paying job I could, and I had to do my best to hold it--no sneaking off to read novels in the ladies room or agitating for a Union. So, in early June, I moved out of my home near Key West and into a $500 efficiency apartment about a 45-minute drive from town. I would have preferred the trailer park right on the edge of town, but they wanted over $600 a month for a one- person trailer. Finding a job turned out to be a little harder than I'd expected, given all the help-wanted signs in town. Finally at one of the big corporate discount hotels where I'd applied for a housekeeping job, I was told they needed a waitress in the associated ``family restaurant.'' The pay was only $2.43 an hour, but I figured with tips, I would do far better than I would have at the supermarket which was offering $6 an hour and change. I was wrong. Business was slow, and tips averaged 10% or less, even for the more experienced ``girls.'' I was curious as to how my fellow workers managed to pay their rent. The immigrant dishwashers (from Haiti and the Czech Republic) mostly lived in dormitory-type situations or severely over- crowded apartments. As for the servers, some were technically homeless. They just didn't think of themselves that way because they had cars or vans to sleep in. I was shocked to find that a few were sharing motel rooms costing $40 to $60 a night, and I'm talking about middle-aged women, not kids. When I naively suggested to one co-worker that she could save a lot of money by getting an apartment, she pointed out that the initial expense--a month's rent in advance and security deposit--was way out of her reach. Meanwhile, my own financial situation was declining perilously. The money I saved on rent was being burned up as gas for my commuting. I was spending too much on fast food. I began to realize it's actually more expensive to be poor than middle class: You pay more for food, especially in convenience stores, you pay to get checks cashed; and you can end up paying ridiculous prices for shelter. I decided to redouble my efforts to survive. First, I got a waitressing job at a higher-volume restaurant where my pay averaged about $7.50 an hour. Then I moved out of my apartment and into the trailer park, calculating that, without the commute, I'd be able to handle an additional job. For a total of three days altogether, I did work two jobs-- including a hotel housekeeping job I finally landed. At the end of the month, I had to admit defeat. I had earned less than I spent, and the only things I spent money on were food, gas and rent. If I had had children to care for and support--like many of the women now coming off welfare--I wouldn't have lasted a week. But my experiment did succeed in showing that, even in an economy celebrating unequaled prosperity, a person can work hard, full-time or even more, and not make enough to live on, at least if she intends to live indoors. I left thinking that if this were my real life, I would become an agitator in no time at all, or at least a serious nuisance.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely concerned about the very disturbing reports from Russia which indicate that Kremlin authorities are intimidating, harassing and attempting to control the nation's news media. These unwarranted attacks have been directed primarily at Media- Most, which is the largest and most successful privately-owned television and publishing company in Russia. Democracy and freedom are still new and largely untested in Russia, and efforts are still underway to develop firmly rooted democratic institutions. Until now, however, press freedom has been one of the early successes in Russia's transformation from a totalitarian society to one that permits true freedom, including free speech and uncensored news reporting. Mr. Speaker, any efforts to impose government censorship or control over any news media--and particularly over private news organizations-- would be a tragic and serious setback for democratization in Russia. The news media must be free to report, even when that it is critical of the government. There is absolutely no justification for government agencies to threaten media companies as a means of controlling what is reported in the news. I want to report to my colleagues in the Congress about recent disturbing actions by the Russian government that seem to be directed at some of the most professionally respected news organizations in Russia. Reports from Moscow indicate that the Director of Presidential Administration, Mr. Alexander Voloshin, is engaged in a personal campaign against the prestigious NTV and other private media enterprises because he is dissatisfied with how the news media are covering the government and its activities. It has been widely reported by wire services that the Federal Tax Policy Service of the Russian Federation is relentlessly monitoring the financial and economic activities of privately owned television companies, publishing houses, and other mass media outlets. The Russian Government appears to be involved in a campaign of targeting these news organizations in order to undertake investigations or other legal of quasi-legal actions against those who own or operate independent news media outlets. Mr. Speaker, another form of harassment has been an effort to censor the media. Just this month, the Russian Government established the Ministry for Publishing, Television and Radio aimed at ``consolidating'' the government's ``ideological work.'' That last phrase, Mr. Speaker is a chilling throw-back to conditions under the totalitarian Soviet regime, when the government and Communist Party made a concerted and successful effort to strictly control and censor all news media under the rubic of ``ideological work.'' The head of this new ministry is a ``press czar'' who has been equipped with power to oversee and possibly censure the content of news reports and other information programs in Russia. This is a frightening prospect for all news organizations--and particularly for privately owned independent media--who could lose their freedom to report news as they see it. This censorship effort could be particularly destructive during periods of increased political activity, such as national election campaigns. Mr. Speaker, the situation today in Russia is especially precarious given President Yeltsin's fragile health and the absence of strong leadership at the national level. This has been clearly demonstrated by the fact that President Yeltsin has dismissed three Prime Ministers in the past two years. With the upcoming parliamentary elections in December 1999 and presidential elections in June 2000, the situation is expected to become even more politically charged and volatile. It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that the newly launched effort to control and/or censure the media in Russia is in large part explained by these upcoming elections. With the beginning of serious political activity over the next year in connection with the parliamentary and presidential elections, Kremlin authorities have accelerated their offensive against NTV and other independent news outlets. One of the clearest indications of this struggle is the fact that the state-owned television network ORT is using its news programs to undermine privately-owned rival television network. Mr. Speaker, I have consistently supported U.S. programs to assist Russia to get back on its feet economically, to develop strong private institutions, and to establish a functioning market-oriented economy. All of us want to see Russia succeed and become a strong and viable democratic country which plays a positive role in the community of nations. Respect for freedom of expression and freedom of the press, however, are absolutely essential if we are to assist Russia, and an uncensored press is essential if Russia is to take its appropriate place in the world. I call upon President Boris Yeltsin and Prime Minister Sergei Stepashin to take quick and decisive action to end once and for all the efforts within the Kremlin to punish, intimidate or threaten independent news reporting in Russia. The government must also end its policy of favoritism by rewarding those who gratuitously promote the official Kremline line. Mr. Speaker, with the critical parliamentary and presidential elections coming up in Russia during the next twelve months, the Russian government must do everything in its power to insure free and fair reporting of all political events. Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are absolutely essential for any democratic nation. Russia's international reputation and its position among the community of nations depend on how it deals with this most serious threat to its democracy.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, there is a grotesque quality to this debate. If someone walks into this room, he really does not know whether he is listening to people who favor or oppose extending preferential trade relations with China because almost everybody begins by denouncing the horrendous human rights conditions in China. Well, they are indeed horrendous. Ten years ago, I put up in my office this poster demonstrating how a single individual with the courage of his convictions stood up to this monstrous, corrupt, communist dictatorship. Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. What moral authority this body has, it relinquishes it every year as we debate this issue. The future of China does not rest with the communist leadership of this country. It rests with the new people who are passionately committed to a free and Democratic vote, are arrested daily, and are persecuted by this rotten dictatorship. Support the resolution.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, some time back I rose in the well of this House to denounce the burning of Black churches in the south. A few weeks ago, it was my duty and the duty of my like-minded colleagues to denounce the burning of three synagogues in California. Today it is my painful duty to speak out against a new and different incipient hate crime. I am proud to represent the City of San Francisco in this body. San Francisco is viewed across the globe as one of the most spectacularly beautiful places on Earth, but its real beauty comes not from its location and topography and buildings but from the richness of the cultural variety of its citizens. In recent days, our Chinese American population has been intimidated, attacked, assaulted, with hate literature of the most pernicious type. I stand here, Madam Speaker, calling on these merchants of hate to stop their nefarious and hideous business. San Francisco's Chinese American community is one of the most law abiding, industrious, hard working, patriotic segments of our society. They deserve our respect and our recognition; not the oozing of hate literature and the threats of thugs who are in the process of attempting to intimidate a population which for generations has contributed so richly, not only to the cultural variety but also to the economic vibrancy of our city. This attack on San Francisco's Chinese American community must stop. I call upon the major law enforcement agencies at all levels to be ultra vigilant in seeing to it that these merchants of hate will not go beyond their threats and, in fact, engage in physical actions of intimidation against the Chinese American population. San Francisco prides itself, and justly so, in providing a secure, safe and civilized haven to all its citizens. The Chinese American population of the City of San Francisco is entitled to nothing less. I intend to meet with the leadership of that community to reassure them that my colleagues in this body and indeed our Federal Government is fully prepared to protect them in all their rights and privileges as American citizens.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a pleasure for me to call to the attention of my colleagues the work of an extraordinary woman, Dr. Inge Genefke, and the institution which she established, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims. Dr. Genefke, a Danish physician, is an outstanding humanitarian and a distinguished medical doctor who uses her training and compassion to bring healing to those who have endured the pain of torture and abuse inflicted by repressive governments with whose policies or ideologies these unfortunate victims have questioned. Today, at the end of the 20th century, some experts say that one- third of the 185 member states of the United Nations still practice torture or tolerate its use, and torture has been a dark side of human history for centuries. The clinic which Dr. Genefke established in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 1979 was the first of its kind anywhere in the world which was devoted specifically to treating such victims of torture. Dr. Genefke's unique mission--fighting for the forgotten victims and survivors of torture around the world--makes her one of the great heroines of humanity. Mr. Speaker, Reader's Digest published an excellent article in March 1999 on Dr. Genefke and her humanitarian work. I urge my colleages to read this article and to join me in paying tribute to this courageous and compassionate woman. [From Reader's Digest, Mar. 1999] She Heals Tortured Souls Thanks to the dedicated work of Dr. Inge Genefke, the lives of tens of thousands have been salvaged (By Lawrence Elliott) Miguel Lee, desperate to find release from his inner agonies, came one day to a clinic at the University Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark. But when he saw the white coats of the hospital staff he began to tremble. ``What's the matter,'' Dr. Inge Genefke asked him. He couldn't tell her. It was too black a memory. But Miguel was able to speak of the anxiety that raged in his stomach, the headaches that felt like spikes being driven into his skull, the nightmares that jolted him into shrieking wakefulness and terrified his family. Dr. Genefke listened carefully. Miguel sensed her concern; he trusted her. And finally he told her of the echoing torture chamber, night after night, when they wired his head to an instrument and sent excruciating electric shocks surging through his ears. Dr. Genefke asked him about the white coats. ``The doctors wore white coats,'' he said. ``And there was always a doctor in the torture room to make sure you didn't die. Dying was too good for us.'' Once he had been a respected union leader and the head of a loving family. Now, after three years of imprisonment and torture by the junta that seized power in Chile in 1973 and three years of exile to Demark, Lee is broken in mind and body. Doctors assure him they understand how terrible the torture must have been. But they remind him that it is over. It is time to get on with his life. It is what everyone tells him. He couldn't make anyone understand that the torture doesn't end when they stop beating you--until now. ``But the pain wasn't the worst, was it?'' Dr. Genefke asked him. ``Wasn't it worse that they made you feel guilty and ashamed? And don't you still feel that way?'' Miguel's eyes welled with tears. Dr. Genefke explained to Miguel that they had tortured him to break his spirit, to destroy his faith in himself, to make sure that he would never again have the courage to speak out against them. ``We can help you here,'' she went on. ``But you have to believe in one thing: nothing that happened to you in prison was your fault. Nothing! It was all their fault.'' Miguel nodded mutely. He had finally found someone who understood. ``Torture has been a dark side of human history for centuries,'' Dr. Genefke says today. But the clinic she established in 1979 was the first of its kind anywhere devoted specifically to treat its victims. When she began, it was still thought that torture could be restricted to a few bandit regimes, even eliminated. But it remains widespread. Fully one third of the 185 United Nations member states practice torture or tolerate its use. The appalling realization that dungeon brutality had become the policy of many states changed Dr. Genefke's life. Determined to break through the curtain of apathy and ignorance in which torture flourished, she organized seminars, addressed rallies and raised money. Today there are more than 100 torture treatment centers around the world that were inspired by the efforts. The lives of tens of thousands have been changed by her and her team's work. Essentially the same techniques are used around the world: slamming both ears simultaneously, often resulting in ruptured eardrums; rape and homosexual rape; electric torture; holding the victim's head under water polluted with human excrement to the verge of suffocation. A universal favorite if falanga, in which the victim is beaten on the soles of his feet often in an upside down position. Sometimes he is then made to walk barefoot on shards of glass. When Ahmad, (some names have been changed to protect victim's families) a student leader from the Middle East, is brought to Copenhagen he cannot walk. The soft flesh on the bottom of his feet has been badly beaten and the soft tissue and nerve-endings severely damaged. Ahmad remains at the clinic for a full year. In that time, psychotherapy helps him regain a true sense of himself. Then, having been treated with radiology, massage and other forms of physiotherapy, he walks out of the hospital with the help of a cane, but without pain. Today, an intact human being, he is married and a father. Nothing in Inge Genefke's early years foretold a life in which she would come face to face with the agony inflicted by one human being on another, or be nominated several times for the Nobel Peace Prize. She grew up in middle class comfort, protected from life's harsher sides by warm and loving parents. A graduate of the University of Copenhagen, her career path as a specialist in neurology seemed fixed until she and three other physicians responded to a plea from Amnesty International to examine political prisoners of the infamous late sixties government of the Greek ``Colonels.'' They had been tortured, but some with such diabolical skill that there were no visible wounds, and only X rays and laboratory tests revealed their severe internal injuries. Deeply moved by their suffering, Dr. Genefke began a pioneering study into the uses and long-term consequences of torture, and of the medical treatment of its victims. ``In the beginning,'' Dr. Genefke says, ``we thought, Okay, we patch them up, we set the broken bones and send them home. But we soon realized it was the pain in their hearts and souls that was devastating them.'' Genefke had entered one of the least known branches of medicine. She had her little team, working with a few rooms and some beds made available at University Hospital, set out on a stop-and-go, trial-and-error quest for ways to heal the survivors of institutional torture. In time, the clinical studies and principles for a rehabilitation programme would be shared with treatment centres around the world. All tangible medical symptoms are dealt with by specialists. Many of the patients believed what their captors has told them--that the torture had left them finished, living on borrowed time. So every symptom was checked, every presumed fatal illness probed, and nearly always disproved. Abused sinews and bones were ministered to by medicine, physiotherapy and surgery. But, as Dr. Genefke says, broken bones are easier to mend than broken spirits. One study has revealed that of 100 Polish victims of Stalinist torture, 75 still suffered symptoms of severe stress or were chronically despondent 40 years later. In Nepal, M, a factory worker in her twenties, is summarily arrested, beaten with rifle butts and raped by four policemen before losing consciousness. Charged with prostitution, she is moved from one town to another, verbally abused in public and repeatedly raped by police officers. A month after her arrest she is released and threatened with death if she takes any legal action. Suffering constant bleeding, sleepless nights and blinding panic whenever she sees a man in uniform, she finally comes to the Nepalese Centre for the Victims of Torture. ``It's normal to feel ashamed,'' the therapist tells her, ``but it's not your shame. The shame belongs to those who did these things to you.'' Her family has to be helped to understand this, too. It takes time. So does her long and painful treatment. Eventually she and her family are able to put guilt, shame and despair behind them. Inge Genefke set up the Rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims in 1982. Three years later, she organized its international body, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT), of which she became secretary-general and medical director. She is married to Professor Bent Sorensen, a burns specialist and a member of the UN Committee against Torture. Their time together is precious. Dr. Genefke is constantly travelling to help launch new centres, to rally people to her cause. This September, she is organizing a conference in New Delhi with the National Human Rights Commission. Despite the worldwide enormity of torture, many of the centres Dr. Genefke has inspired get little or no help from their governments. But she has an uncanny ability to win over gifted professionals willing to take up the cause. ``One minute you have a certain kind of life and the next minute that whirlwind, Inge Genefke, comes along and you're on her team,'' said one. Yet there are times when the task seems insuperable. She sees a ghostly army of torture survivors out there, from communist prisons, military dictatorships in Latin America, the victims of upheavals in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. The number of victims seems to be growing, and her efforts to help them sometimes seem insignificant. ``It is like trying to climb a mountain that keeps getting higher,'' she says. Months of hospitalization and years of holistic therapy and rehabilitation were necessary before Miguel Lee was entirely sound. But now he has a steady job and with nine grandchildren, a full and rewarding family life. And in the end the junta did not defeat him. Although he speaks Danish and is well-integrated into his new land, he spends much of his free time working for the preservation of the democratic freedoms Chile has wrested back from the military dictatorship. Sometimes Inge Genefke has to seclude herself and spend an hour or so reading poetry to replenish her soul. But when she sees a man like Miguel Lee come back from the living dead, when she knows that her work has helped save some of this generation's best people from death and disability, she is again ready to tackle the highest mountain.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. At the outset, let me commend my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), for bringing this resolution to the floor and for his decades of dedicated service on behalf of the democracy and freedom in Europe and elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, it is important, as we pay tribute to our own political leadership on a bipartisan basis during the Cold War and to the 24 million men and women who served the United States in uniform during the Cold War, that we recognize that the victory was not ours alone; it was ours, and it was the victory of equally committed freedom-loving democratic people throughout the NATO alliance. From Norway to Spain, men and women committed to freedom and democracy and to opposing totalitarian regimes joined with us in succeeding in this tremendous historic victory that was symbolized by the collapse of the Berlin Wall. The distinguished Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and I happened to be in Berlin, Mr. Speaker, as the Berlin Wall was being dismantled. We were there along with scores of others from many countries chipping away at the wall and bringing home with us tiny segments of that symbol of tyranny. The Berlin Wall, as my colleagues will note, is the only wall ever erected in history not to keep the enemy out, but to keep the people inside this wall so they could not escape, and yet scores of individuals in a variety of ways, many of them giving their lives in the process, broke out, tried to break away from an era of tyranny. I think we also need to pay enormous tribute to the people who lived within the Soviet Union and within the Soviet satellites who gave their lives to fight those regimes, the tens of thousands of refuseniks and dissidents and slaves of the giant gulag archipelago whose sacrifices far exceeded the sacrifices of all of us who lived in the free world. I think it is important to realize, Mr. Speaker, that while the collapse of the Berlin Wall symbolized the end of the Cold War, it surely did not symbolize our struggle against tyranny, and, as we applaud our victory and the victory of our allies and the victory of the dissidents in the Soviet Empire over totalitarianism and tyranny, it is important for us to pay tribute to the judgment and determination of those who led the fight against the tyranny more recently in Bosnia Herzegovina and Kosovo. The struggling Kosovo is a direct continuation of the Cold War. The name of the dictator has changed from Stalin to Milosevic, but the underlying issues have remained the same, and those who feel that we have seen the end of history have a thing coming. History has not ended. The voices of tyranny, the attempt to suppress and persecute people because of their political beliefs, ethnic backgrounds, religious views continues. And while we are all rejoicing in the collapse of the Berlin Wall, we are all rejoicing in our victory in the Cold War over the Soviet Union, the struggle goes on. As our distinguished Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, reminded us on a recent occasion, problems neglected abroad will eventually reach our shores. This should be a reminder to all the neo- isolationists that the collapse of the Berlin Wall is not the end of our effort, but just a significant milestone in our struggle against totalitarian tyranny.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.