Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment and Housing of the Government Operations Committee, I conducted an investigation of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement of billions of Federal dollars at the Department of Housing and Urban Development during the Reagan administration. That investigation required almost 2 years to complete and involved the holding of some 30 public hearings. That investigation was carried out with the regular subcommittee staff, which was augmented for a portion of that time by two investigators from the General Accounting Office. I received no additional funding for my investigation. We conducted a serious and thorough investigation with no allocation of additional funds. Today, we are considering a Committee Funding Resolution that will provide some $12 to $15 million for the investigation Chairman Burton proposes to conduct in the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. This resolution includes a slush fund of an additional $8 million for this same investigation. The Government reform investigation is being allocated two to three times the amount which the Senate committee under Senator Thompson has received. Not only is Chairman Burton's investigation duplicating only a portion of that same Senate investigation, he is doing so at three times the cost. Mr. Speaker, the committee funding resolution is a serious waste of taxpayer dollars. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have given us lengthy speeches about the necessity to reduce government waste and reduce the deficit. Here we have an opportunity to avoid waste, duplication, and encourage efficiency--but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are simply voting to spend taxpayer moneys wastefully and unnecessarily. The second concern that I would like to raise in connection with this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the partisan nature of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee investigation that is being endorsed by supporting the committee funding resolution. Mr. Speaker, an investigation that is bipartisan has credibility with the American people. An investigation that is partisan will be dismissed--as it should be--by the American people. Again referring to the HUD investigation that I conducted earlier, our actions were totally bipartisan. Subpoenas were issued on the basis of the vote of the subcommittee--not by the unilateral action of the chairman--and every vote to issue a subpoena was unanimous. The direction and the details of that investigation were worked out with the active involvement and cooperation of my distinguished Republican colleague, Chris Shays of Connecticut. That investigation was taken seriously because it was bipartisan, that investigation had credibility with the American people because it was bipartisan. This resolution today provides excessive funding for an investigation that is partisan and wasteful and outrageous. Mr. Speaker, a vote for this resolution will come back to haunt those of my colleagues who mistakenly vote for it.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, on March 17, 1992, the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, was destroyed by a massive suicide bomb, and several nearby buildings were also destroyed. In that bombing, 29 people were killed and an additional 252 innocent people were injured, many seriously. Victims of the attack included employees of the Israeli Embassy and their families, children from a nearby Roman Catholic primary school, men and women from a nearby Roman Catholic church shelter, a Roman Catholic priest, and others. Two years later the Jewish Community in Buenos Aires was also destroyed in a terrorist bombing in which 86 people died and over 200 were injured. Despite worldwide attention to these catastrophes, we are now marking the fifth anniversary of this hideous terrorist bombing and yet we still have had no prosecution and even no sign of progress in identifying those who carried out this vicious attack. It is time for the Congress to express our serious concern about this outrageous and unacceptable situation. Mr. Speaker, on this tragic anniversary, with 12 of our distinguished colleagues, I introduced House Concurrent Resolution 50 which notes the fifth anniversary of the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on March 17, 1992, and calls upon the Argentinean Government to take more aggressive steps to solve the crime. Our resolution ``notes with regret'' that this is the fifth anniversary of the Israeli Embassy bombing and ``police and judicial authorities in Argentina have not identified and initiated prosecution of the perpetrators of these two barbarous acts of terrorism.'' The resolution also urges the Supreme Court of Argentina to designate a single judge to conduct the investigation of the Embassy bombing in order to improve the efficiency of the inquiry. Currently, the full membership of the Supreme Court is in charge of the investigation, and this has hampered the effectiveness of the investigation. I invite my colleagues to join as cosponsors of this legislation and urged redoubled effort to solve these horrendous crimes. The text of House Concurrent Resolution 50 follows: H. Con. Res. 50 Whereas on March 17, 1992, the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, a school, and several nearby buildings were destroyed by a powerful suicide car bomb blast in which 29 innocent children, women, and men lost their lives and an additional 252 innocent people were injured; Whereas the victims of this terrorist attack included employees of the Israeli embassy and their families, children from a nearby Roman Catholic primary school, women and men from a nearby Roman Catholic church shelter, a Roman Catholic priest, and people across the spectrum of Argentine society; Whereas Argentina's Jewish community, which numbers over 300,000 and is the largest Jewish community in Latin America, has suffered periods of severe Anti-Semitism during periods of military rule and feels particularly vulnerable to assault from certain radical Islamic groups and from indigenous far right extremists in Argentina; Whereas Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing of the Israeli Embassy and praised the name of the alleged suicide bomber, Abu Yasser, by calling him a ``martyr struggler,'' and Islamic Jihad is a terrorist organization that is supported by Iran and United States State Department officials have stated that Iranian diplomats collected information to plan the bombing; Whereas the failure of Argentine and international efforts to bring the perpetrators of the embassy bombing to justice made Argentina a prime target for a second devastating terrorist attack on July 18, 1994, just two years after the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, when the Asociacion Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) Jewish Community Center was destroyed in a similar car bombing in which 86 people died and over 200 people were injured; and Whereas the effectiveness of the investigation of the Israeli embassy bombing, which is being conducted by the Supreme Court of Argentina, has been hampered by the inefficiency of having the entire membership of the court in charge of the investigation: Now, therefore, be it-- Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring) that the Congress (1) Notes with regret that March 17, 1997, marked the fifth anniversary of the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, that it is now more than two and a half years since the bombing of the AMIA Jewish Community Center, and that policy and judicial authorities in Argentina have not yet identified and initiated prosecution of the perpetrators of these two barbarous acts of terrorism; (2) Urges the Supreme Court of Argentina to designate a single investigative judge to conduct the investigation of the terrorist bombing of the Israeli Embassy in order to improve the efficiency of the inquiry; (3) Urges Argentinean judicial authorities to move forward aggressively in the investigation of the terrorism bombing of the AMIA Jewish Community Center because of the probability that there is a connection between that bombing and the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires; (4) Urges Argentinean authorities to acknowledge publicly the reports submitted by Argentinean, United States, and Israeli experts, which determined that the explosion at the Israeli Embassy took place outside the walls of the embassy; (5) Urges the President and appropriate executive agencies to provide all appropriate assistance which has been or which may be requested by Argentinean government authorities in order to help that government in investigating these acts of terrorism; and (6) Directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to forward a copy of this resolution to the government of Argentina.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last week Egyptian President Mohammed Hosni Mubarak, as well as Foreign Minister Amre Mahmoud Moussa and other leaders of the Egyptian Government, were here in Washington for meetings with the administration and with Members of Congress. I was one of the Members who welcomed President Mubarak and his delegation at a lunch hosted by the Committee on International Relations. As always, President Mubarak and Foreign Minister Moussa were gracious and frank in their discussion on a whole range of issues involving the relationship between the United States and Egypt. One issue which deserves particular attention, however, is the issue of anti-Semitism in the Egyptian press. Shortly before President Mubarak arrived in the United States, the Anti-Defamation League [ADL] issued an excellent report ``Anti-Semitism in the Egyptian Media.'' This report was another outstanding example of the kind of work that the ADL does in fighting racism and anti-Semitism here in America and around the world. At our meeting with President Mubarak, I presented him with a copy of this report and indicated to him my serious concerns about its disturbing findings. President Mubarak responded that the Egyptian press was a free press, and even the Government media were quite independent. I told both the President and Foreign Minister Moussa that the press in Egypt is far from being truly free and independent. The moral authority of the President and the political, economic, and ethical leverage which the Government can exercise could go a long way to discourage and diminish the anti-Semitism that appears so frequently throughout the Egyptian press. President Mubarak gave me a copy of the Egyptian Government response to the ADL study, in which was included a collection of Israeli cartoons which were considered offensive to Egypt. There is, however, a significant difference. The Egyptian cartoons are patently anti- Semitic--vicious racial stereotypes of Jews appear and there are a number of cartoons in which the Star of David is transformed into the Nazi swastika. The Israeli cartoons are very much like the political cartoons we see here in the United States--Egyptian leaders are portrayed in caricatures and the cartoons satirize policies much as Herblock or Oliphant would do here. There are no racist stereotypes, there are no anti-Muslim overtones to the cartoons. Mr. Speaker, as I told President Mubarak, peace must be won in the minds of the people--the Egyptian people must accept the Israelis if there is to be real peace in the Middle East. People must come to accept the right of the Jews to live in the land of Israel. These anti- Semitic cartoons do not create the climate that is essential for a lasting peace. I strongly urged the President to use his enormous prestige and moral authority to bring an end to this kind of racism. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the column of Stephen S. Rosenfeld from the March 14 issue of the Washington Post be placed in the Record. Mr. Rosenfeld also met with the Egyptian President as I did and his reaction was much the same as mine. I urge my colleagues to read carefully this article. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 14, 1997] The War of the Cartoons (By Stephen S. Rosenfeld) At breakfast in Blair House I asked President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt about those terrible antisemetic cartoons that for years have adorned the government-controlled Cairo press. The Anti-Defamation League had greeted him on this visit with a booklet and a challenge in a New York Times ad, and it seemed to me a good time to hear how the government that has led the Arab world in reconciling with Israel deals with the seemingly contradictory policy of perpetuating those vicious images. Mubarak is rough and affable in an officers' mess style, an old hand at engaging with the foreign press. He looks you right in the eye, and plainly he was ready for the question. He said in essence that Egypt has a press law and he does not control the press, that he is himself criticized in the press and that he had advised editors not to get personal in dealing with Israel but to stick to criticism of official Israeli policies. He batted away my attempt to induce him to say whether the Egyptian press meets that excellent standard. At one point in the discussion, he signaled to an aide who left the room and quickly came back with an exhibit so similar in format to the ADL attack booklet that it was almost amusing. Mubarak had suggested that the Egyptian press was merely indulging a type of criticism familiar in the Israeli press. He now handed me a sheaf of cartoons from both English- and Hebrew-language papers in Israel. The war of the cartoons may not seem very compelling at a moment when the whole structure of Arab-Israeli peace-seeking trembles on a knife's edge. Consider, however, that one important reason why the process is so precariously perched lies exactly in the fact that it is vulnerable to the popular sentiments evoked in those cartoons, especially the Egyptian ones. The Egyptian cartoons have what is to a Western eye an unmistakably racist content. They rely on crude physical and cultural stereotypes of Jews, and they drape Israeli officials with Nazi swastikas. These images and accusations, says the ADL report on ``Anti-Semitism in the Egyptian Media,'' are to be found in words but most flagrantly in political cartoons which, ``often boldly displayed on newsstands, can inflame passions in a country where illiteracy is significant and where young people may not read the newspapers, but obtain a clear and distorted impression of Jews from the illustrations.'' Mubarak cannot be taken literally when he claims that the Egyptian press is independent and that its independence absolves him of responsibility for its enthusiasms. There can be a discussion only over whether particular parts of the Cairo press are best described as ``tame,'' ``government- owned'' or ``-controlled'' or ``semi-official.'' Egypt, for all the sophistication of many in its elite, remains one of those countries where editors get to massage major media themes with the president over coffee. A shrewd Third World leader like Mubarak would hardly ignore the capability his press gives him to conduct a certain second line of public diplomacy based on the domestic mass media to complement the first line conducted at the foreign office. It is sobering to consider that no matter how often he is reminded that the cartoons measurably shrivel Israeli readiness for compromise and accommodation, Mubarak still lets them run. He does so apparently in order to appease hard-liners at home and in the Arab world. It is pale comfort to be told that many Arabs don't think those cartoons are all that abusive anyway and that Egypt is actually something of an island of tolerance in the larger Arab sea. The Israeli cartoons have what is to a Western eye an unmistakably political content. The Egyptian information ministry's booklet describes them, in this instance fairly, as ``Israeli Caricatures of Egyptian Policy.'' Caricatures they are, strong and abrasive but not racial attacks on Arabs. It is foolish to claim there is no trace of racialism in Israeli attitudes toward Arabs. But if you are looking for it on these pages chosen by Arab officials, you will not find it. An Egyptian cartoon from Ros al-Yusuf of last Sept. 9 depicts an Israeli soldier bedecked in a Nazi flag. An Israeli cartoon in Maariv of Oct. 29 shows Mubarak unleashing a press attack on Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. An American journalist has to be sensitive to the booby traps that imperil any effort to distinguish objectionable ``racist'' cartoons in one place from acceptable ``political'' ones in another. Such an effort cannot be used either to spare Israeli criticism for its policies or to rationalize censorship practices in Egypt. But the fact is there is an antisemitic strain on public view in Egyptian society and in the media. It is appalling in its own right and it does harm to constructive public policies. Rather than allowing it to go on, responsible Egyptian authorities ought to be repudiating it without equivocation.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived piece of legislation and in strong support of the position of the President of the United States. Mr. Chairman, it is important that we keep this issue in perspective. The drug problem is an American problem. It is our problem. It is a demand-driven issue. If there were no demand for drugs in the United States, the drug lords in Mexico and elsewhere would not be able to sell their products. Now, it is very easy to vote against Mexico. It is very easy to decertify. But our question should be what can we do to most effectively help the fight against illegal drugs? Passing this ill-conceived legislation will make the Mexican Government less likely to cooperate with us, and it will make the Mexican people justifiably outraged. There are far too many courageous Mexican policemen, soldiers, judges, journalists, government officials who have lost their lives in the fight against the drug lords. It is an insult to them to attempt to decertify this Government, which has given us better cooperation than we have ever had from Mexico. Mr. Chairman, we all understand that the cases of corruption in Mexico are appalling. We understand that there are high-level people who have been paid off, and not all of them are as yet imprisoned. But do we decertify the New York City Police Department when there is corruption? Do we decertify the FBI or the CIA when there is corruption and even the sale of our national secrets? Mr. Chairman, this legislation today has much more to do with political posturing than with helping fight the drug war. There are no negative political consequences for Members in this House from insulting the Government of Mexico. Last November, the American people made it clear that they want a bipartisan approach to solving the drug problem. This resolution and its amendment is an insult to the President. The President clearly understands that Mexico's record is far from perfect, but it is better than it has been, and it is critical that this Mexican Government work with us in fighting against illegal drugs. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this resolution. Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I support the committee-reported version of House Joint Resolution 58. Let me briefly explain what that language does. It disapproves the President's decision to certify that results in the decertification of Mexico. It permits the President, however, to waive the sanctions associated with decertification if he determines it is in the vital national interests of the United States to do so. Mr. Speaker, we are confronted here with the application of a law which this Chamber passed. That law requires Mexico, in order to be certified, to have fully cooperated with the United States or to have taken adequate steps to deal with the narcotics problem. I simply do not believe that Mexico's record over the past year meets the law's high standard for full certification. I am quick to acknowledge that the president here faced a tough decision. He could certify Mexico as having fully cooperated, and that is what he did; he could decertify Mexico, and of course that raises a lot of difficult foreign policy problems for the United States and Mexico; or he could have decertified but exercised the vital national interest waiver that the law provides. The President made the judgment that he would certify Mexico. By so doing, he found that Mexico had fully cooperated with the United States in the fight against drugs. I disagree with that judgment. I believe that this decertification- certification statute should be repealed. It forces the President to make a legal assessment without providing adequate options for the policy dilemma that he faced. It forces him to make a narrow judgment about each country at issue. But, my friends in this Chamber, we do not have the privilege of ignoring the law. We may not like the law, and I do not like the law, but we should not evade the law. And the law provides today, the law which most of us in this Chamber voted for, the law provides that Mexico must fully cooperate. Not partially cooperate, not cooperate more today than it did 2 years ago or 4 years ago. The law provides that they must fully cooperate, and I do not think any person can find full cooperation by the Mexican Government in the fight against drugs. Some cooperation, yes. Maybe it is better than a year or 2 years ago, but not full cooperation. Mr. Speaker, we cannot play fast and loose with the requirements of the law, because we are the body that makes the law. Now, let me say if you look back over the past 6 or 7 years, what we have done again and again and again is to find that the Mexicans have cooperated, that they have had great success in combating drugs. Every President has found that now for 7 or 8 years. We have been deceiving ourselves. We would better serve the national interest, in my view, if we spoke the truth about that cooperation. Some good things, some bad things, but not full cooperation. We should speak the truth, the good and the bad, and we should apply the law. We should not evade the law. Everybody in this Chamber knows the Mexican record. It does have some good features. The administration believes at the very highest levels of the Mexican Government we are getting good cooperation today. You go down each of the major measures of cooperation, corruption, extradition, the task force, the number of arrests, cooperation on overflight rights and marine agreements and all of the rest, and you cannot find cooperation. So I believe the best choice here, and the choices are not easy, is to say that the Mexicans should be decertified. But because this relationship with Mexico is so important, because we understand that the national interest of the United States is to stop the flow of drugs into this country, because we understand that we are not going to be able to do that successfully without the cooperation of Mexico, the better thing to do here is to decertify Mexico because they have not fully cooperated, because that is what the statute demands of us, and then to say, because of the importance of this relationship and all of its aspects, we waive, under the national security waiver, and that is the position I think this body should adopt.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today--March 10th--marks the 38th anniversary of the Tibetan people's national uprising. It was on this day in 1959 that the people of Tibet, chaffing under a decade of repressive Chinese Communist rule and brutal occupation, rose up in a violent rebellion against the Chinese. It was a cry of a people whose religious institutions, whose educational institutions, and whose very way of life were being systematically destroyed. The Chinese Government responded with savage brutality. Thousands were killed. Some 100,000 Tibetans fled their homeland and were given refuge in India and Nepal. Among those who were forced to flee their homeland was His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Since 1959 the Dalai Lama has lived in India, where he has continued to speak out and work on behalf of the people of Tibet--those still living in Tibet under Chinese rule and those in exile in India and elsewhere. Despite the violence and repression that he and his people have suffered, the Dalai Lama has become a voice for peace and nonviolence. In recognition of this outstanding contribution, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989. Mr. Speaker, as we mark today the 38th anniversary of the Tibetan people's national uprising, I ask that the statement of His Holiness the Dalai Lama be placed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to read it. This gentle man of peace has again spoke with great wisdom, great force, and great integrity. His message is one that is important for all of us to understand. Statement on the Anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising--Mar. 10, 1997 (By the Dalai Lama) In the closing years of the 20th century, as we commemorate the 38th anniversary of the Tibetan people's National Uprising, it is evident that the human community has reached a critical juncture in its history. The world is becoming smaller and increasingly interdependent. One nation's problem can no longer be solved by itself. Without a sense of universal responsibility our very future is in danger. Today's problems of militarization, development, ecology, population, and the constant search for new sources of energy and raw materials require more than piece-meal actions and short term problem-solving. Modern scientific development has, to an extent, helped in solving mankind's problems. However, in tackling these global issues there is the need to cultivate not only the rational mind but also the other remarkable faculties of the human spirit: the power of love, compassion and solidarity. A new way of thinking has become the necessary condition for responsible living and acting. If we maintain obsolete values and beliefs, a fragmented consciousness and self- centered spirit, we will continue to hold on to outdated goals and behaviors. Such an attitude by a large number of people would block the entire transition to an interdependent yet peaceful and cooperative global society. We must draw lessons from the experience we gained. If we look back at the development in the 20th century, the most devastating cause of human suffering, of deprivation of human dignity, freedom and peace, has been the culture of violence in resolving differences and conflicts. In some ways, our century could be called the century of war and bloodshed. The challenge before us, therefore, is to make the next century a century of dialogue and non violent conflict resolution. In human societies there will always be differences of views and interests. But the reality today is that we are all interdependent and have to co-exist on this small planet. Therefore, the only sensible and intelligent way of resolving differences and clashes of interests, whether between individuals or nations, is through dialogue. The promotion of a culture of dialogue and non-violence for the future of mankind is thus an important task of the international community. It is not enough for governments to endorse the principle of non-violence or hold it high without any appropriate action to promote it With these convictions I have led the Tibetan freedom struggle on a path of non-violence and have sought a mutually agreeable solution to the Tibetan issue through negotiations in a spirit of reconciliation and compromise. Inspired by the Buddha's message of non-violence and compassion, we have sought to respect every form of life and abandoned war as an instrument of national policy. For us Tibetans the path of non-violence is a matter of principle. And I am convinced that this approach is the most beneficial and practical course in the long run. As we commemorate this anniversary, we look back at yet another year of escalating repression in Tibet where the Chinese authorities continue to commit widespread and grave human rights abuses. Under the ``Strike Hard'' campaign launched by the Chinese authorities in April last year, Tibetans are subjected to increased torture and imprisonment for peacefully expressing their political aspirations. Political re-education conducted by the authorities in monasteries and nunneries throughout Tibet have resulted in mass expulsion, imprisonment and death. I continue to be concerned about the fate of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the boy I have recognized as the 11th Panchen Lama, and whose whereabouts are still not known. Last year China dropped all pretense of respecting the ancient religious and cultural heritage of Tibet by launching a large-scale reform of its religious policy. The new policy states that ``Buddhism must conform to socialism and not socialism to Buddhism''. Under the pretext that religion would have a negative influence on Tibet's economic development, the new policy aims to systematically undermine and destroy the distinct cultural and national identity of the Tibetan people. New measures to curtail the use of the Tibetan language in schools were introduced. The Tibet University in Lhasa has been compelled to teach even Tibetan history in the Chinese language at the Tibetan Language Department. Experimental Tibetan language middle schools, established in the 1980s with the active encouragement and support of the late Panchen Lama, are being closed down. These schools were very successful and were highly appreciated by Tibetans. These new measures in the field of culture, religion and education, coupled with the unabated influx of Chinese immigrants to Tibet, which has the effect of overwhelming Tibet's distinct cultural and religious identity and reducing the Tibetans to an insignificant minority in their own country, amounts to a policy of cultural genocide. Today, in most major towns and cities Tibetans are already marginalized. If this population transfer is allowed to continue, in a few decades Tibetan civilization will cease to exist. Tibetans have reacted to all this repression largely peacefully and I believe all people have the right to peacefully protest injustice. However, recent reports of isolated incidents of bomb explosion in Tibet are a cause of deep concern to me. I will continue to counsel for non violence, but unless the Chinese authorities forsake the brutal methods it employs, it will be difficult to prevent the situation in Tibet from deteriorating further. Being a Tibetan, I have been giving particular importance to reaching out to the Chinese people, whether they are in China or elsewhere. It is in the interest of both the Tibetan people and the Chinese that there be a deeper level of understanding between ourselves. It has always been my belief that the cultivation of human relationship is of great importance in the creation of an atmosphere conducive to human understanding, mutual respect and peace. In recent times the people-to-people dialogue between the Tibetans and Chinese is fostering a better understanding of our mutual concerns and interests. The growing empathy, support and solidarity from our Chinese brothers and sisters in China as well as overseas for the plight and fundamental rights of the Tibetan people is of particular inspiration and encouragement for us Tibetans. The recent passing away of Mr. Deng Xiaoping is a great loss to China. I have known him personally. Mr. Deng Xiaoping took the initiative to establish direct contact with us to start a dialogue to solve the Tibetan problem. Unfortunately, serious negotiations could not take place during his lifetime. It is my sincere hope that the succeeding Chinese leadership will find the courage, wisdom and vision for new openings to solve the Tibetan issue through negotiations. The beginning of a new era in modern China presents an opportunity for constructive change and positive development. The recent military clamp down in East Turkestan (Xinjiang), aimed at quelling the Uighur people's demonstrations and the ensuing cycle of violence are tragic and unfortunate. As in the case of Tibet, similarly also in East Turkestan, a lasting and peaceful solution can be found only through dialogue. Another important task ahead for the Chinese government is the smooth transition of Hong Kong and the implementation of the pragmatic and wise concept of ``one country, two systems'' in spirit and letter. A constructive approach to these issues provides important opportunities to create a political climate of trust, confidence and openness, both domestically and internationally. The growing international support for Tibet reflects the inherent human empathy for and solidarity with human suffering and universal appreciation for truth and justice. To portray the support for Tibet as a plot of Western anti- China forces is to evade the truth for political convenience. This is unfortunate because such kind of mental bamboo- walling will continue to prevent a constructive approach to solving the problem. Ultimately, it is for the Tibetan and the Chinese peoples to find a mutually acceptable solution to the Tibetan issue. Bearing in mind this reality, we have consistently pursued a course of dialogue with the leadership in Beijing. However, Beijing's refusal to listen to and recognize the genuine grievances of our people left us with no other choice but to present our legitimate and just cause to the international community. The Tibetan people have displayed a remarkable spirit of endurance, courage and patience in the face of the most brutal repression. I urge my fellow Tibetans to continue to resist violent acts of frustration and desperation as a means to protest against injustice and repression. If we give in to hatred, desperation and violence, we would debase ourselves to the level of the oppressors. The way of the oppressors is intimidation, coercion and the use of force. Ours is a belief in and reliance on truth, Justice and reason. This distinction is our most effective weapon. The call of the time for us in this period of difficulty is to exert ourselves with greater determination, wisdom and patience. With my homage to and prayers for the brave men and women who have died for the cause of Tibetan freedom.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago, the Center for Strategic and International Studies organized an outstanding conference in Brussels of leading European and American government, parliamentary, business, and intellectual leaders. A number of our colleagues were invited to attend and participate, and the Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader both strongly encouraged Members to participate in this outstanding conference. Mr. Speaker, we are at a critical period in the relationship between the United States and the countries of Europe. We have--gratefully-- come to the end of the half-century long cold war, but as yet we have not resolved the nature of the post-cold war world. We have not yet completed this important period of change and reordering of international relationships. We are on the eve of momentous decisions regarding the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty, and there is a solid consensus on the importance and wisdom of inviting a number of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to become members of NATO, with the prospect of further enlargement later. The European Union is moving toward inviting several of these same countries to become full members of the European Union. At the same time that we are facing these changes in the international arena, however, we in the United States have entered into a period of more inward focus, and our domestic preoccupation unfortunately runs directly counter to what our role ought to be at this time of great fluidity in the international system. This is a time when leadership and farsighted international statesmanship is needed by the United States and from the United States. We must actively and constructively participate in the shaping and forming of the post-cold war international system. It is essential that we actively participate because of our extensive economic, political, cultural, and other interests throughout the world. This CSIS conference was particularly important in reaffirming and helping key participants define and redefine the Trans-Atlantic community of interests that we in the United States share with our friends in Europe--interests that are expressed through our commitment to NATO, our relationship with the European Union and its member states, and growing multiplicity of ties with the newly emerging democracies of Central and Eastern Europe and the newly-independent republics of the former Soviet Union. Mr. Speaker, this excellent CSIS conference was most ably chaired by Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former National Security Advisor to President Carter and a distinguished scholar, and M. Jacques Delors, the distinguished French diplomat and former President of the European Commission of the European Union. Both of these outstanding men guided the conference through a series of extremely productive discussions that more than fulfilled our hopes for this conference. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Dr. Brzezinski's concluding remarks at the CSIS conference be placed in the Congressional Record, and I urge my colleagues to read them carefully and thoughtfully. His observations are particularly significant in putting into context the importance of the decisions we and our allies and friends in Europe face. These are choices that will affect the future of our Nation and of the world--and our choice is either actively to participate by taking positive steps to influence the future or passively to watch as conditions develop that will profoundly affect our Nation but with or without our active participation in shaping them. America and Europe: A Time for Unity, a Time for Vision February 22, 1997 (By Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski) Ladies and gentlemen, let me say that I personally feel very grateful for having had the opportunity to participate in these sessions, and also to serve as co-chairman with Jacques Delors who has added so much gravitas and distinction to our proceedings. As we come to an end of what has been a very rich, very diversified discussion, I would like to share with you my own sense of what I have extracted from our dialogue. Obviously, it would be futile to recapitulate its various fine points or to replicate the specific foci of our debates. I come away, however, with an intensified awareness of the fact that we stand before two grand challenges to which we jointly have to respond. In effect, we have to fashion two grand bargains for the next decade. The first involves a trans-Atlantic relationship, and particularly insofar as the United States is concerned, we have to come to terms with the fact that if Europe is to be our partner, it has to be an equal partner. There is a fundamental truth in this assertion and an enormous operational difficulty. Partnership has been the American rhetoric for years. It is the official rhetoric of our bureaucracy, but it is not necessarily practiced. And I think that we will have to adjust, step by step, to the idea that if Europe is to be a partner, there will have to be operational and institutional adjustments in how we make decisions and how we share responsibilities. And that will mean some American concessions. But it also means something else. It means that Europe has to be there. We cannot create Europe for the Europeans. A European Europe has to be built by the Europeans. If America is to be Europe's partner, and if Europe is to be America's equal partner, Europe has to be prepared to shoulder larger responsibilities, and more equal burdens. And that is a very major undertaking which sometimes is overlooked by those who insist on greater equality across the Atlantic, on equality in decision making but not necessarily on equality in the burdens of decisions. So this is a task for the two of us. The second task is that NATO and Russia have to agree on an accommodation which acknowledges the reality of a larger Europe, and of a Europe that by virtue of being larger, involves also a larger Euro-Atlantic alliance. Russia and NATO have to agree, therefore, in that context, not only on the relationship, but on a role for Russia in the larger context of European security and in relationship to the Euro- Atlantic alliance. And that requires us to formulate serious proposals--which we are in the process of doing--for joint consultations, for some co-participation in the discussions pertinent to regional security policies and actions. But it also means that Russia has to accept reciprocal obligations. It is not only a matter of Russia having a voice which pertains--and I am being careful in my wording--not determines, but which pertains to NATO decisions. It does not only mean concessions which are reassuring to Russia regarding NATO troop deployments or weapons deployments. It also means symmetrical Russian concessions regarding NATO's voice on pertinent Russian decisions regarding troop deployments or weapons deployments. For example, NATO already has made a peremptory and preemptive concession (without even asking would-be members) on the question of NATO nuclear deployments on the soil of new members. I actually happen to feel confident that the new members would not want to have nuclear weapons on their soil, but they probably would have preferred to make that decision themselves once members of the NATO alliance. Nonetheless, NATO in its wisdom has already told the Russians that it will refrain from the deployment of nuclear weapons on the soil of new members. I think it behooves us also to ask the Russians about the prospects for nuclear demilitarization, at the very least, of the Kaliningrad segment, which happens to be located in Central Europe and is very pertinent to the security of the Scandinavian-Baltic region. It is very pertinent to the security of Germany; it is very pertinent to the security of Poland. Similar questions could be raised regarding troop deployments on the western frontiers of Russia, particularly next to the very vulnerable Baltic Republics. In brief, the grand bargain with Russia has to involve, also, reciprocal understandings, reciprocal obligations. It is essential that these grand bargains be both completed because failure in either case would entail negative consequences. If we do not accept, in a real sense, Europe as an equal partner, I rater fear that the United States will be torn in the years to come by the opposite poles of unilateralism and isolationism. If we and Europe do not share burdens in common, do not make decisions in common, do not have a genuine reality of partnership, the American public on the one hand will occasionally veer towards isolationism; on other occasions, it will favor unilateralism and even wallow in it. And that real risk could, over time, adversely affect the quality of the very unique relationship that we have with each other. If Europe fails to unify and thus to become a genuine partner, I think it is a fair question to ask whether the forces of historical pessimism now at work in Europe will not begin to prevail over the forces of historical optimism in Europe. Looking at Europe from the vantage point of America, but exploiting somewhat my own European antecedents, I sense that there are conflicting forces at work in contemporary European societies. That the era of optimism, of Europeanism, may be challenged by forces which are much more inward oriented, which in some cases can be more domestically narrow minded, occasionally, even ethnically or religiously xenophobic. This would not be good for Europe. It certainly would complicate Europe's relationship with us, irrespective of what would happen in the American orientation. If we do not reach the grand bargain with Russian, there is the risk that Russia will be more antagonistic, and that is something that we want to avoid. Though in seeking to avoid it, we should not be shy in saying publicly that the expansion of NATO will in fact help a democratic Russia. We should not be shy in saying it, and we should not be shy in coupling this with saying that the expansion of NATO will hurt an imperial Russia. And we should not be shy in saying that either, because that pertains to the fundamental question regarding Russia itself, namely what will Russia be in the future. This is a large, creative dynamic nation undergoing a profound crisis of self-definition. The collapse of the Soviet Union has brought home the reality to many Russians that the four hundred year long imperial history of Russia has come to an end. But many find it very difficult to accept that and this is particularly true of the former Soviet foreign policy establishment, which is now the Russian foreign policy establishment. The idea of the multinational Russian imperial power still is deeply rooted, providing the basis, therefore, for Russia's claim to global status. What the Russians should realize--they have to realize--is that if Russia is again to be a great country, it can only be a great country if it democratizes itself and modernizes itself, and indeed, the two probably go hand-in-hand. But the quest for an imperial restoration is futile, counterproductive, and we will not support it. And we will not pay a price to avoid Russian antagonism that the for the sake of avoiding the antagonism makes that restoration, perhaps, more feasible. So failure to have the grand bargain would be regrettable. But even worse than that would be if NATO just expands a little bit or cuts a deal with Russia which dilutes NATO's identity by de facto making Russia a member of NATO while promising that there will be no further expansion. For that I think would be profoundly demoralizing to those who would be left out, and profoundly destabilizing, in terms of the future, for it would create a zone of disappointment, psychological vulnerability, as Congressman Lantos said yesterday, and geopolitical anxiety which would be fully justified. And it would create temptations in Russia to define itself in a historically adverse fashion. So the failure to have a grand bargain would be regrettable, but a grant bargain which dilutes NATO, and which limits the progressive expansion of the Euro-Atlantic scale would be even worse. And the worst of all would be failure to deliver on that which we have undertaken, which is to expand, because we made a decision. We have made it, all sixteen of us have made it. We are committed. And if we now fail to go through with it, either in July, or more likely in the ratification process, we will be signaling that we have neither the will nor the capacity nor the determination to shape the kind of world we want to have which is democratic, pluralistic and secure. This is a fundamental historical challenge. Thus at issue are three great realities: what is the global role of America, and how we share our global responsibilities with Europe as a partner who partakes of the same philosophy and values; at stake is the question whether Europe will be Europe, a real Europe, and not a truncated Europe, or worse, a Europe that is divided; and, ultimately at stake is also the question of how Russia divines itself, and whether it will someday be a party of that larger community of which America and Europe are currently engaged in constructing. Those are the great challenges that we face. And, therefore, the kind of judgments that we were making yesterday and today are not only strategic, they are historical. And the choice, I think is clear. If we have the vision, I trust we will also have the will.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say a few words about the job classification of workers, and to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 769, H.R. 770, and H.R. 771, the Misclassification of Employees Act. H.R. 771 clarifies our tax laws with regard to employee classification. H.R. 769 and H.R. 770 would require debarment from contracting with the Federal Government of any person who has been determined to have willfully misclassified a worker. Misclassification occurs when an employer wrongfully treats a worker as an independent contractor rather than as an employee. I have introduced H.R. 769, H.R. 770, and H.R. 771 as separate bills because they are referred to separate House committees. Mr. Speaker, small business men and women have contacted many of us to explain some of the important reasons why Congress should take another look at how workers are classified for Federal income and employment tax purposes, as well as for many nontax purposes. We know that confusion with employee classification rules can lead to costly disputes with the IRS with devastating effects on small businesses. These costs include, among others, assessments of back taxes, interest, and penalties for businesses which misclassify workers as independent contractors, as well as the legal costs involved with coming into compliance with or defending against an IRS audit. There are other issues relating to the misclassification of workers that arise out of the current procedures for determining who is an employee and who is an independent contractor, including the effect of misclassification on the unsuspecting worker, the effect of misclassification on the honest businessman trying to compete with a competitor who has misclassified his workers, and the effect of misclassification on the Federal budget deficit. H.R. 771 would remedy some of the unintended effects that arise out of the current procedures for determining who is an employee and who is an independent contractor. I would like to make clear from the outset, however, that I agree with and recognize the appropriate and valuable roles of those who work as independent contractors. This country has benefitted greatly from the spirit and independence of the self-employed individual and I do not think there is anyone who wants to stifle the creativity of these individuals. It is the misuse of the independent contractor status and its serious adverse effect on both employer and worker that concerns me. My distinguished colleague and friends, Chris Shays, and I became interested in the classification of workers several years ago when we served together on the Employment and Housing Subcommittee of the Government Operations Committee. We found that the current means for determining employment status has had several negative effects: First, it results in similarly situated employers being treated very differently under tax law; second, it allows--and actually encourages-- businesses to undercut competitors through unfair practices; third, it leaves some workers exploited and unprotected; and fourth, it deprives the Federal Government of significant revenue. Under current law, workers are classified as either employees or independent contractors in one of three ways. First, some workers are explicitly categorized as either employees or independent contractors by statute. Second, workers may be classified as independent contractors under statutory safe harbors enacted in section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978. Third, if a worker is not classified statutorily, and cannot be classified under the statutory safe harbors, then the worker is classified by applying a very subjective common law test. Most workers fall under this third category. Current law also allows some employers to misclassify workers if they have a reasonable basis for classifying employees as independent contractors. For example, an employer may rely upon a widespread industry practice as a reasonable basis for classifying a worker as an independent contractor. In fact, under the recently enacted Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, the industry practice safe harbor was liberalized so that it may apply even if less than one-quarter of an industry classifies certain workers as independent contractors. Our legislation eliminates the safe harbor provisions entirely, since such provisions allow and encourage the misclassification of employees to continue. We thus restore a level playing field and eliminate the unfair competitive advantages which arise due to the misclassification of workers. Because the common law test is extremely subjective, employers have trouble in properly determining worker classification, and revenue agents often classify workers differently even where the underlying circumstances of their employment are the same. Since a large part of the misclassification of workers is due to a lack of understanding of the laws, clearer rulings and definitions will eliminate a tremendous amount of uncertainty in this area. Our legislation eliminates the restriction on the IRS to draft regulations and rulings on the employment status of workers for tax purposes. Mr. Speaker, our investigation found that the economic incentives for businesses to misclassify workers as independent contractors are huge. An employer who misclassifies a worker as an independent contractor escapes many obligations, including paying Social Security taxes, unemployment taxes and workers compensation insurance, withholding income taxes and providing benefits such as vacation, sick and family leave, health and life insurance, pensions, and so forth. Most employers are honest, but the law-abiding employer is put at a serious disadvantage since he or she cannot compete on a level playing field with those who illegally cut their labor costs by misclassifying workers. Law-abiding employers will not be able to compete fairly until we provide more clear, objective standards by which businesses and the Government can determine whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor. Mr. Speaker, employers who have unintentionally misclassified workers should be given the incentive to come into compliance. Our legislation offers a 1-year amnesty to employers who have misclassified workers on the basis of a good faith interpretation of common law or of section 503. This provision removes the devastating possibility of large assessments for back taxes, interest and penalties and insures compliance in the future. Misclassification can also have a devastating effect on the unsuspecting worker. As a contractor, he or she may receive a higher take-home pay and may be allowed to deduct more business expenses from income taxes. But the loss of financial benefits and of the many protections which are provided to employees can be catastrophic in cases of illness, unemployment and retirement. For example, there is no unemployment compensation for the independent contractor to fall back on between jobs. Health insurance is an individual responsibility and is usually far more costly than an employer's group policy. In the case of work-related injury or illness, there is no worker's compensation available. Our legislation would require prime contractors to notify legitimate independent contractors of all their tax obligations and other statutory rights and protections. Mr. Speaker, as you know, many Federal entitlement programs hinge on the number employees that an employer has on its books. Thus, misclassifying employees as independent contractors also can enable employers to either escape responsibility for, or allow their workers to fall within coverage of, these entitlement programs. For example, the Health Insurance Portability Act of 1996 contains a much-heralded provision allowing medical savings accounts [MSA's]. However, MSA's are not available to an employee unless that employee works for a small employer, which is defined as an employer which employed 50 or fewer employees during either of the preceding calendar years. Additionally, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act only allows a total of 750,000 taxpayers to have an MSA. Under liberal worker classification proposals, it would not be at all difficult for a dishonest employer with 60 employees to reclassify 10 of them as independent contractors so that the business now qualifies as a small employer. Moreover, by doing so, this type of dishonest employer may end up causing the 750,000 MSA participant ceiling to be reached much sooner than it otherwise would be, thereby bumping out of the MSA Program employees in other small businesses who lawfully would be entitled to their own MSA's. H.R. 771 would eliminate such distortion of the system by dishonest employers. Last, Mr. Speaker, billions of dollars in Federal and State tax revenues are being lost as a result of the intentional misclassification of workers. This is one of the few remaining areas where we can help reduce the Federal budget deficit without further cutting Government services or levying new taxes. A recent Coopers and Lybrand study found that at least $35 billion in legitimate tax revenue over the next 9 years will be lost by the Federal Government due to the misclassification of employees. At a time when critical services are on the chopping block, we can no longer allow this waste and abuse to continue. We must take steps to curb the continued misclassification of employees. The advantages of our legislation over more lax worker classification proposals are clear. Our legislation would clarify existing law, while other worker classification proposals seek a radical change to the worker classification principles that businesses have operated under to date. Our legislation would create a level playing field, while other worker classification proposals actually encourage unfair competition between employers and dishonest employers to cheat millions of unsuspecting workers out of employee benefits. Finally, our legislation would save the Federal Government billions of dollars in lost revenues, while other worker classification proposals would cost the Government billions more in lost tax revenues. Mr. Speaker, misclassification, and especially intentional misclassification, has continued as a festering problem in this country for too long, and it is time for Congress to finally do something about it. I urge my colleagues to support the Misclassification of Employees Act.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in commending Mr. William Davidson, president and CEO of Guardian Industries Corp. and managing partner of the National Basketball Association's Detroit Pistons Basketball Club, on the dedication today of the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York City. This event is an important milestone in the history of the Jewish Theological Seminary and will ensure that future generations of scholars have the opportunity to study in one of America's premier centers for Jewish learning. This new addition to the world's scholarly institutions is only the latest of Bill Davidson's outstanding contributions to the field of education and just another example of his philanthropy. As the founder of the William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan Business School in Ann Arbor, Bill Davidson endowed an institution whose purpose is to help nations--such as the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Republics of the former Soviet Union--make successful transitions from command to market economies. As the founder of the William Davidson Business School at Technion--Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel, Bill Davidson created the world's first educational institution entirely dedicated to the international management of technology-based companies. Bill Davidson's commitment to education and the Jewish people has been recognized through the awards bestowed upon him for his service over the years. Among those awards, Bill was the recipient in 1992 of the Fred M. Butzel Memorial Award for Distinguished Community Service, the Jewish community's highest award for volunteer service. He has served as chairman of the United Jewish Appeal for Detroit and as president of Congregation Sha'arey Zedek. Most recently, he has demonstrated his continuing commitment to Israel through his funding of the William Davidson Community Center in Yavne, Israel, and the restoration of the William Davidson Second Temple Period Archeological Park and Orientation Garden in the city of Jerusalem, Israel. Mr. Speaker, the dedication of the Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education is only the latest outstanding accomplishment in a career of philanthropy for education and Jewish causes that knows few rivals. I urge my colleagues to join me in commending Bill Davidson for his vision and commitment to education and the Jewish people.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in urging the adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 17 congratulating the people of Guatemala on the success of the recent negotiations to establish a peace process for Guatemala. This is an important statement of congressional support and the people of Guatemala should know of our interest and concern and support for their efforts in the peace process there. Mr. Speaker, I join in congratulating the people of Guatemala on reaching a peaceful solution to the brutal civil war in which more than 100,000 people were killed over the past 36 years. In the violence, thousands of individuals were tortured, raped, and ``disappeared.'' The frustrating and difficult U.N.-sponsored peace negotiations between the Guatemalan Government and the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Union [URNG] were not quick, but they have brought an end to the violence. At the same time, however, I wish to express my serious concerns regarding the sweeping amnesty provisions which were, ironically, dubbed the Law of National Reconciliation. This legislation, which passed the Guatemalan Congress after only 2 days of consideration on December 18, 1996, raises some questions that I wish to call to the attention of my colleagues. If misapplied, the Law of National Reconciliation, which followed the signing of the Peace Accords in Madrid on December 12, 1996, will not reconcile the people of Guatemala with government forces, but will plant the seeds of future suspicion and mistrust between the Guatemalan people and members of government agencies. I am concerned that the amnesty provisions could be used to open up a legal back door for human rights perpetrators to escape just prosecution. The broad amnesty provisions are also in direct conflict with the March 1994 Human Rights Accord, one of the proclaimed milestones in the Guatemalan peace process. This accord required both sides to agree that the government would not sponsor measures designed to prevent prosecution of human rights violations. I urge the Guatemalan authorities at least to apply the minimum safeguards in the Law of National Reconciliation when prosecuting human rights violations. While providing amnesty for political crimes related to the armed civil war, article 8 of this law excludes cases of genocide, torture, and forced disappearances from the amnesty, as well as crimes for which amnesty is prohibited by Guatemalan law or Guatemala's international treaty obligations. I am also concerned, Mr. Speaker, with regard to civil cases in which U.S. citizens are involved, which are not connected with the armed conflict. The Law of National Reconciliation could potentially be used to terminate the landmark cases brought against Guatemalan Government forces by U.S. citizens Helen Mack, sister of the slain Myrna Mack; Jennifer Harbury, the wife of Mr. Bamaca; Carole Denn, wife of Michael DeVine; and Sister Diana Ortiz. In addition, those few members of the military who have already been convicted in the DeVine and Mack cases could be released from prison. I hope the Guatemalan legal authorities will insure that all human rights perpetrators in Guatemala are brought to justice, and none of these cases will be terminated or suspended under the amnesty provisions. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution today, but I also urge the Guatemalan Government to be certain that human rights violators are sought out and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, almost 3 years ago, on July 14, 1994, a great injustice was committed by one of the most powerful corporations in America--Sprint--against some of the least powerful among us. A union representation election was underway at a Sprint subsidiary which employed 177 Hispanic telemarketers who sold Sprint's long distance services to Spanish-speaking customers. Nearly all the workers at the San Francisco Sprint subsidiary, known as La Conexion Familiar ``The Family Connection'' [LCF], were women who had immigrated to the United States from Mexico and Central and South America. Many of them spoke only Spanish, which was no handicap in their specialized marketing jobs. When it became clear to Sprint that the La Conexion Familiar workers would vote to be represented by the Communications Workers of America, Sprint suddenly shut the office--just 8 days before their union election. The announcement was made over the PA system during the workday, and the workers were gathered together to be searched by guards and sent out the door. The women were so shocked and upset that paramedics had to be called to the scene, and one worker was even admitted to a hospital. The dreams of these workers were shattered and their jobs were summarily eliminated, simply because they wanted a union, and because they believed that in the United States, our labor laws would guarantee workplace democracy and the right to organize. One young woman described her ordeal this way at a public hearing on the shutdown held last year in San Francisco: ``For me, everything fell apart that day. I couldn't face being out of work. I started abusing alcohol. I was so depressed. I fought with my fiance and I yelled at my children. After 2 years, I have another job now, but my experience at Sprint changed everything for me. I will always carry around the fear that I'll suddenly be fired for no reason.'' Mr. Speaker, more than 2\1/2\ years later, the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] finally declared that the LCF closing was an illegal action and ordered Sprint to rehire the workers to comparable jobs with full back pay. Sprint immediately appealed the decision. It is expected that it will take between 1 and 2 years for the NLRB to hear the appeal and issue a final ruling. Of course, pending the appeal, none of the former LCF workers will receive the back pay or the jobs to which they are entitled according to the NLRB ruling. By dragging out this case and refusing to take responsibility for its actions, Sprint adds another chapter in a long and unfortunate tale of abuses against the LCF workers. It was Sprint's discriminatory treatment of the LCF workers, along with sweatshop working conditions, that first drove the workers to try to seek representation. This Hispanic LCF workers were kept in a second-class status at Sprint--earning $7 an hour as compared to $11 an hour for regular Sprint telemarketers. The payment of commissions was arbitrary and discriminatory, and the workers complained. And Sprint managers restricted their visits to the bathroom, telling the workers to drink less water so they wouldn't have to go as frequently. When the workers started organizing for union representation, Sprint managers engaged in such blatantly illegal behavior to harass and intimidate union supporters that even the NLRB's investigators--investigators who have seen it all--expressed shock when they later reviewed the evidence. During the long and drawn out legal proceedings in this case, the NLRB proved--and Sprint ultimately admitted to--scores of charges of illegal threats to close the office if workers voted for a union, of coercing workers to spy on other workers, and of interrogating and browbeating union supporters. Sprint's treatment of the LCF workers has been condemned by the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, by dozens of my colleagues in the Congress, including the Hispanic caucus, and by government and labor officials in Mexico and Canada as well as in Germany, where Sprint is involved in a partnership with Deutsche Telekom. Mr. Speaker, through its action, Sprint has gained itself an international reputation as a violator of our Nation's labor laws. Sprint should know that pursuing endless legal appeals is an unacceptable business practice. Unfortunately, this is a trend that is growing. I would like to include in the Record for the benefit of my colleagues a column by the distinguished president of the Communications Workers of America [CWA], Morton Bahr, which was published in the CWA News of February 1997. President Bahr's column, entitled ``Breaking the Law, Business as Usual,'' provides documentation of increasing labor law violations--specifically the growing use of plant closing threats--by American corporations to defeat union organizing drives. The column follows: Breaking the Law, Business as Usual (By Morton Bahr) As philosophers and pundits ponder the breakdown of morality, social values and respect for law and order in America, maybe they should look at the example being set by elements of corporate America, such as the Sprint Corp. The workers at Spring/La Conexion Familiar in San Francisco were determined to organize a union. Working in what came to be exposed as an ``electronic sweatshop,'' these Spanish- language telemarketing workers were so determined, in fact, to change their conditions that they were unfazed by Sprint's fierce, and illegal, campaign of threats and intimidation. Their support for the union seemingly only grew stronger as Sprint's management team stepped up its campaign of illegal coercion. Finally, Sprint did the only thing it could do to crush the first incursion by a union in its long distance operations. It simply shut the doors at La Conexion Familiar on July 14, 1994, eight days before the union representation election. About two-and-a-half years later, this past December 27th, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that the closing violated federal law and ordered Sprint to rehire the workers with full back pay. Sprint immediately filed an appeal of the ruling to a U.S. Appeals Court. That will keep the case spinning around the legal system for at least another year and a half, and a Sprint spokesman already has predicted a further appeal to the Supreme Court if the company loses this round. A remarkable aspect of this case is that Sprint openly, unashamedly, admitted to more than 50 illegal violations of the La Conexion workers' rights at an earlier trial before an administrative law judge. Knowing that it would receive no more than a wrist slap for its union-busting activities--creating an atmosphere of surveillance of union supporters, having managers interrogate workers one-on-one about the union campaign, openly threatening to shut the office if they voted for the union-- Sprint's lawyer brigade brushed off these charges and focused only on the issue of Sprint's motive for the closing. That was the one issue that could provide a real, costly, remedy for the workers. And sure enough, a slap on the wrist it was for the 50 violations. The administrative law judge's order amounted almost to a sick joke: Sprint was required to write a letter to the workers, after their office was closed for good, stating that it would not in the future violate their rights to organize a union. Now, finally, a meaningful remedy has been ordered, but Sprint is determined to see that justice is delayed for as long as it takes. Perhaps the company hopes that some of the workers will be dead, and others scattered to the winds no longer to be found, by the time its legal appeals have been exhausted. Clearly for Sprint, routinely violating labor laws is viewed simply as a smart strategy to enforce its acknowledged objective of remaining ``union free.'' And its associated legal bills are merely a cost of doing business. This attitude is not unique in the corporate world--in fact, it's becoming the norm today. A recent study by researchers at Cornell University was inspired by the Sprint/La Conexion Familiar case. It was the first study specifically of the impact of the threat of plant and office closings on worker union drives. The study found that in fully one-half of all organizing campaigns, as well as in 18 percent of first contract negotiations, employers today threaten to close their facilities. And employers follow through on the threat 12 percent of the time. This represented an increase in shutdown threats from 30 percent, as found in earlier studies by the same researchers, to 50 percent today. The result, Cornell reported, is that worker organizing success rates are cut from about 60 percent to 40 percent when the employer threatens to close the facility. No wonder. What more devastating weapon could an employer use to kill a union drive than to declare--``vote for the union and you lose your job?'' The answer is, shut the office down even before the union election, which is what has made the La Conexion Familiar affair stand out as a case that's being closely watched around the world. It's somewhat ironic--and certainly must seem so to Sprint--that the La Conexion Familiar workers have emerged as martyrs on the workers' rights battleground. Sprint clearly thought that a group of mostly immigrant, mostly female workers who spoke only Spanish could be easily intimidated and turned away from their union campaign. But they weren't intimidated, and I later learned why at a public hearing on the La Conexion affair in 1995 conducted by the Labor Department. One of the workers, a woman from Peru, had testified and was subsequently asked by a news reporter: ``If you knew you could lose your job, why did you keep supporting the union?'' The young woman replied: ``What does risking a job matter? In my country, workers have risked their lives to have a union.''

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues in the Congress to join me in paying tribute to San Francisco journalist Herb Caen, who died last week at the age of 80. For 60 years, he has been a staple of San Francisco journalism, and, in the words of the New York Times, he is ``a columnist known for his ardor for San Francisco.'' He began his career in the bay area in 1936 when he joined the San Francisco Chronicle, and his well-known column first appeared on July 5, 1938. Last year, as my colleagues will recall, Mr. Caen was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his ``continuing contribution as a voice and a conscience of his city.'' I called the attention of my colleagues in the Congress to Herb's honor on that occasion and paid tribute to him in the Record in April of last year. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me now in honoring the memory of Herb Caen for his contribution to the uniqueness of our delightful city of San Francisco and for his contribution to journalism. Mr. Speaker, I also invite my colleagues to read the obituary of Mr. Caen that appeared in the New York Times. [From the New York Times, Feb. 2, 1997] Herb Caen, Newspaper Writer, Dies at 80 (By Michael J. Ybarra) San Francisco.--Herb Caen, whose 60-year journalism career was devoted to doting on San Francisco and whose affections were more than amply requited by legions of ardent readers, died this morning at the California Pacific Medical Center here. He was 80. To call Mr. Caen ``Mr. San Francisco,'' as was sometimes done, was redundant. No other newspaper columnist has ever been so long synonymous with a specific place. To his fans, Mr. Caen (pronounced cane) was sui generis, a towering icon in his adopted hometown--although he was largely unknown in much of the nation, his column of stubborn localisms not even traveling well across the San Francisco Bay. But in the city, and no one ever doubted what city he was talking about, Mr. Caen enjoyed the status of a beloved Boswell by the Bay. Part of his appeal seemed to lie in the endless bonhomie he projected, always nattily turned out in suit and fedora, often with a martini glass in hand. Mr. Caen exuded a whiff of elegance from a bygone era. Indeed, his role model was Walter Winchell, the legendary gossip monger, but with the malice shorn off. And unlike Winchell, who outlived his own celebrity and doddered on into obscurity, Mr. Caen's status as a living landmark grew with his longevity. In April 1996, Mr. Caen turned 80, won a special Pulitzer Prize for his ``continuing contribution as a voice and a conscience of his city'' and married his fourth wife. In May, he told his readers that he had inoperable lung cancer--he smoked for 40 years but quit 25 years ago--and 5,000 letters poured in. The city proclaimed June 14 Herb Caen Day and 75,000 people turned out to shower the writer with affection. Mr. Caen was born in Sacramento on April 3, 1916, although he often said he had been conceived while his parents were visiting San Francisco. He wrote a high school gossip column called ``Raisen' Caen'' and after graduation he went to work as a sportswriter at The Sacramento Union. In 1936, he landed a job at The San Francisco Chronicle, arriving in town when Coit Tower was only three years old and ferries were the only way to cross the bay. Mr. Caen began writing his column on July 5, 1938, and wrote it six days a week until 1991, when he cut back to five and later to three. ``I can't find a way out: too many bills and ex-wives and a kid in school, things that chew up the income,'' he told an interviewer just before he turned 80. ``I never intended this to be permanent, but it looks like it's going to be.'' He is survived by his wife, Ann Moller, and a son, Christopher, from a previous marriage. Except for an eight-year sojourn at its rival, The Examiner, Mr. Caen has been a fixture of The Chronicle, and, according to surveys, better read than the paper's front page. Editors had even estimated that as many as a fifth of the paper's 500,000 readers might cancel their subscriptions after Mr. Caen's death. So avid were his fans that for years The Chronicle even ran old columns on Sunday, packaged as ``Classic Caen.'' Local bookstores are full of still in-print copies of old columns recycled into tomes. The columns combined gossip, news, word play and love to San Francisco and those lucky enough to live there, even when acknowledging the unpleasant side of the city. ``The hookers are brazen, the abalone is frozen, and every night is Mugger's Day,'' he wrote in 1971. ``Yet, in spite of it all, San Francisco remains one of the great tourist cities. Most triumphantly, there is life in the streets--raw, raucous, roistering and real.'' Over the years Mr. Caen's journalistic work habits became as effortless as breathing: he wrote in the morning, held court in bars or cafes in the afternoon and took the pulse of the city at A-list events in the evenings, where the man with the cherubic smile and bald pate fringed with curly gray hair was as much a star as anyone he wrote about. Though the self-deprecating Mr. Caen referred to his daily output, pounded out with two fingers on a Royal typewriter, as journalistic stoop labor, he tossed out more than a few enduring bons mots. Baghdad-by-the-Bay and Berserkeley were his coinage. ``Don't call it Frisco,'' he admonished readers once, and locals never did again. A play has been based on his columns and a mention in the same spot has been said to have saved numerous productions and restaurants. At the same time, critics complained that he did not pay for his own meals or clothes or even always write his own column--charges that Mr. Caen never failed to shrug off, along with criticism that he was getting bitter in his old age. ``That started when I was about 30,'' he recalled once. ``Herb, you're getting old and bitter.'' But on Herb Caen Day, when a three-mile stretch of waterfront sidewalk was named in his honor, the columnist was all honey. ``I've loved this town before I was born, and I'll love it after I'm gone,'' he told the crowd. ``One day if I do go to heaven, I'm going to do what ever San Franciscan does who goes to heaven--he looks around and says, `It ain't bad, but it ain't San Francisco.' ''

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, for at least two decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have worked to develop an international convention that will ban the production of chemical weapons and establish an international control regime to make it more difficult to produce these horrible weapons of mass destruction. Shortly after I became the chairman of the Subcommittee on International security, International Organizations and Human Rights of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in early 1993, President Clinton and Secretary of State Christopher submitted the Chemical Weapons Convention to the Senate for ratification. Since legislation to implement the convention requires the approval of both House of Congress, officials of the administration briefed me and members of my subcommittee on its provisions and the legislation necessary to implement that agreement. This is truly an agreement with broad bipartisan consensus. International negotiations were begun on this agreement during the Reagan administration. The complex negotiations were continued and then completed during the Bush administration. It was the Clinton administration which conducted the final review of the agreement and then submitted the completed agreement to the Senate for ratification, and completed final drafting of the implementing legislation which it then submitted to the House and Senate for adoption. Mr. Speaker, the convention and the implementing legislation have been before the Congress now for almost 4 years. The time has come for ratification of the agreement and the adoption of legislation to implement it. It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we move to complete this important international convention. The international agreement and the implementing legislation were worked out with the strong support and in close consultation with chemical manufacturers in the United States. The industry understands that it has a very strong interest in the adoption of the convention and the implementing legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues in the other body to act responsibly, to move quickly and decisively to ratify this important agreement, and I urge my colleagues in this House to move quickly to adopt the implementing legislation. The requisite number of countries have already ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention--it will go into effect with or without the participation of the United States in April of this years. As President Clinton said in his excellent State of the Union Address earlier this week, it is essential that the United States ratify this agreement before it goes into effect so that we will be full and active participants in establishing the international system that will be responsible for enforcing the convention. It is unfortunate when politics gets in the way of good policy, and I fear that this may be happening in the other body. There is broad bipartisan support and broad expert agreement upon the merits of this agreement. In this regard, I call to the attention of my colleagues an opinion article on the Chemical Weapons Convention that appeared in the Washington Post, January 6, 1997 by retired Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, Jr., the former Chief of Naval Operations, 1970-74. Mr. Speaker I ask that Admiral Zumwalt's article be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to give it careful and thoughtful attention. Admiral Zumwalt, who has always had the security interests of the United States as the highest priority, makes an exceptionally strong case for quick approval of the convention. [From the Washington Post, Jan. 6, 1997] A Needless Risk for U.S. Troops (By E.R. Zumwalt, Jr.) It has been more than 80 years since poison gas was first used in modern warfare--in April 1915 during the first year of World War I. It is long past time to do something about such weapons. I am not a dove. As a young naval officer in 1945, I supported the use of nuclear weapons against Japan. As chief of naval operations two decades ago, I pressed for substantially higher military spending than the nation's political leadership was willing to grant. After retiring from the Navy, I helped lead the opposition to the SALT II treaty because I was convinced it would give the Soviet Union a strategic advantage. Now the Senate is considering whether to approve the Chemical Weapons Convention. This is a worldwide treaty, negotiated by the Reagan administration and signed by the Bush administration. It bans the development, production, possession, transfer and use of chemical weapons. Senate opposition to ratification is led by some with whom I often agree. But in this case, I believe they do a grave disservice to America's men and women in uniform. To a Third World leader indifferent to the health of his own troops and seeking to cause large-scale pain and death for its own sake, chemical weapons have a certain attraction. They don't require the advanced technology needed to build nuclear weapons. Nor do they require the educated populace needed to create a modern conventional military. But they cannot give an inferior force a war-winning capability. In the Persian Gulf war, the threat of our uncompromising retaliation with conventional weapons deterred Saddam Hussein from using his chemical arsenal against us. Next time, our adversary may be more berserk than Saddam, and deterrence may fail. If that happens, our retaliation will be decisive, devastating--and no help to the young American men and women coming home dead or bearing grievous chemical injuries. What will help is a treaty removing huge quantities of chemical weapons that could otherwise be used against us. Militarily, this treaty will make us stronger. During the Bush administration, our nation's military and political leadership decided to retire our chemical weapons. This wise move was not made because of treaties. Rather, it was based on the fact that chemical weapons are not useful for us. Politically and diplomatically, the barriers against their use by a First World country are massive. Militarily, they are risky and unpredictable to use, difficult and dangerous to store. They serve no purpose that can't be met by our overwhelming conventional forces. So the United States has no deployed chemical weapons today and will have none in the future. But the same is not true of our potential adversaries. More than a score of nations now seeks or possesses chemical weapons. Some are rogue states with which we may some day clash. This treaty is entirely about eliminating other people's weapons--weapons that may some day be used against Americans. For the American military, U.S. ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention is high gain and low or no pain. In that light, I find it astonishing that any American opposes ratification. Opponents argue that the treaty isn't perfect: Verification isn't absolute, forms must be filled out, not every nation will join at first and so forth. This is unpersuasive. Nothing in the real world is perfect. If the U.S. Navy had refused to buy any weapon unless it worked perfectly every time, we would have bought nothing and now would be disarmed. The question is not how this treaty compares with perfection. The question is not how this treaty compares with perfection. The question is how U.S. ratification compares with its absence. If we refuse to ratify, some governments will use our refusal as an excuse to keep their chemical weapons. Worldwide availability of chemical weapons will be higher, and we will know less about other countries' chemical activities. The diplomatic credibility of our threat of retaliation against anyone who uses chemical weapons on our troops will be undermined by our lack of ``clean hands.'' At the bottom line, our failure to ratify will substantially increase the risk of a chemical attack against American service personnel. If such attack occurs, the news reports of its victims in our military hospitals will of course produce rapid ratification of the treaty and rapid replacement of senators who enabled the horror by opposing ratification. But for the victims, it will be too late. Every man and woman who puts on a U.S. military uniform faces possible injury or death in the national interest. They don't complain; risk is part of their job description. But it is also part of the job description of every U.S. senator to see that this risk not be increased unnecessarily.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring attention to the outstanding achievements of the College of San Mateo and congratulate the institution on its 75th anniversary. As one of the leading community colleges in California, I have the pleasure of having this college in my district. Founded in 1922 as the first community college on the Bay Area Peninsula, the College of San Mateo rose to meet the needs of the community. As the cost of universities rose, educators in San Mateo saw the need to provide education for those who could not afford 4 year universities. The College of San Mateo acted as a bridge to the University of California and Stanford when higher education became increasingly more important. Here, students could save money and still receive a high quality education. The College of San Mateo never stopped serving the community. When World War II struck, the college became the top support center in northern California. As Dean Moris stated: If the need was to have remedial courses, then there would be remedial courses. If a trade school was needed, then trade school classes would be provided. If the community requested adult education, then an adult school would be formed. The college became an invaluable asset to the community and a most valuable tool for the economic future of the region. Hundreds of thousands of students have been educated by the College of San Mateo since its founding 75 years ago. The college has helped start two other community colleges in the county and has been the only community college in northern California to sustain both a television and radio station. As the college of San Mateo approaches the 21st century, the outlook of the community is very bright. For those student that are unable to attend 4 year institutions, this college is an equal alternative. I am proud to acknowledge the outstanding job the College of San Mateo has done educating our community for the past 75 years and will continue into the next century.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the outstanding achievements of Albert Teglia, a man who has dedicated his life not only to public office, but to public service. His dedication and devotion to duty has helped countless numbers of San Francisco Bay area residents with problems ranging from fixing the burdensome Tax Code to fixing a burnt- out street light. For the past 20 years, Al Teglia's humor, compassion, and dedication to duty has been a source of inspiration to all of us who serve the public. Al Teglia served five terms in the Daly City Council and four terms as mayor. He has served on numerous boards and commissions including the Airport Land Use Committee, California School Board Association, League of California Cities, the Peninsula Joint Powers Board, and many others. He was instrumental in negotiating the BART [Bay Area Rapid Transit] Colma extension and spearheaded the Orthodontia Program for San Mateo County. His outstanding achievements have been recognized by awards from the San Mateo Hispanic Council, the Italian American Federation, San Mateo Easter Seals, and Daly City Jaycee to name just a few. The son of Genoese immigrants, Al Teglia has lived on the San Mateo Peninsula all his life. He and his wife of 43 years, Verna, share a love and joy for the bay area community. Too often these days people complain about this problem or that situation without ever lifting a finger to try and help solve it. People like Al Teglia remind us that a community is only as strong as the people in it. Al has given back so much to the community which raised him, we should all look to him as an example. People can actually point to Al Teglia and say, ``He helped make my life better.'' This is the penultimate compliment for a public servant. I hold Al Teglia in the highest regard. There is no task too daunting and no issue too small. With an uncompromising dedication to duty and service, he has touched many lives in the San Francisco Bay area. His presence on the Daly City Council will be sorely missed, but I am pleased he will remain active in the community. His undying devotion and dogmatic determination to serve his community should serve as inspiration to all who aspire to public service.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in commending Mr. William Davidson, president and CEO of Guardian Industries Corp., and managing partner of the National Basketball Association's Detroit Pistons Basketball Club. Bill Davidson has made a remarkable gift of $30 million to establish a world-class business school at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. Mr. Davidson's great vision and philanthropy will ensure that Israel will continue to develop and expand its highly advanced technology-based industries. Furthermore, the international business community will gain an unparalleled resource in the study of management of technology. The Technion, founded in 1924, is Israel's leading science and technology university. With this gift, the Technion will establish a premier business school with the unique combination of a Masters of Business Administration program, advanced technological educations, and international management strategy. Bill Davidson firmly believes that education is the best tool for promoting economic growth. To that end, he has focused enormous philanthropic efforts over the years. In 1992, he gave $30 million to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor to create an institute to assist nations around the world in making successful transitions to market economies. In 1994, a gift of $15 million was made to establish a graduate school of Jewish education at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York City. This latest gift to the Technion demonstrates Mr. Davidson's conviction that technology-based industries represent a tremendous opportunity for Israel to expand its economy, attract foreign capital, and, in turn, enhance its long-term economic security. The new Davidson school will allow the Technion to leverage its vast technological capabilities through targeted management education and research and thereby make a critical contribution in Israel's quest for economic independence. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Bill Davidson's generosity and vision in creating a remarkable new business school at one of the world's great scientific institutions. This gift will enrich the lives of countless people in Israel and around the world.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, as we in the West cope with another series of devastating winter storms and floods, residents along the San Mateo County coast are relieved to find that a section of Highway 1, known locally as Devil's Slide, which lies precariously on a sea cliff high above the roaring surf of the Pacific Ocean, is still intact. Devil's Slide is a breathtaking, and all too often lifetaking section of California's scenic coastal highway which has slowly been sinking into the Pacific Ocean as it is battered by waves 600 feet below. Winter storms in previous years have closed Highway 1 at Devil's Slide for up to 6 months, leaving residents and businesses dangerously isolated. This area is 12 miles south of San Francisco in my congressional district. Perennial closures of Devil's Slide have had a devastating effect on our coastal community. Residents have endured unbearable commutes, access to emergency medical care and other services have been threatened, businesses have lost thousands of customers, and some businesses have failed. For residents and businesses along the San Mateo County coast, it is absolutely essential to have Highway 1 open around Devil's Slide. Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago, in 1984, Congress closely studied the closure of this vital transportation link and lifeline. After heavy winter rains washed out the road, leaving a 250-foot-long crevice in the road which made the road impassible for 4 months. Then Chairman Glenn Anderson of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee held a series of field hearings in Half Moon Bay and Pacifica, CA, and committee members carefully surveyed the unstable roadway which was sliding 3 inches a day into the sea. Committee members viewed 8-foot-deep cracks and fissures in the roadbed and determined that this vital transportation link was eligible for emergency Federal funds. At my request, the Congress provided funding for the permanent repair of Highway 1 at Devil's Slide. The California Department of Transportation [CALTRANS] made temporary repairs to the roadway and proposed building a controversial 4.5 mile long bypass around Devil's Slide. Some residents opposed the bypass on environmental and antidevelopment grounds and blocked bypass construction in Federal court for over 10 years. A false sense of security brought on by 10 years of drough ended in January 1995, when heavy rains again closed Devil's Slide for 6 months. For the second time in 12 years this vital transportation link was severed, again disrupting the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands of residents and businesses. Mr. Speaker, after decades of debate and lawsuits, the voters of San Mateo County have put an end to the battle with CALTRANS over how to resolve the problem of Devil's Slide. Voters decided overwhelmingly in favor of a local referendum to approve a mile-long tunnel at Devil's Slide instead of a bypass which would involve extensive cutting and filling of Montara Mountain. The referendum amends the local coastal plan, substituting a tunnel as the preferred permanent repair alternative for Highway 1 at Devil's Slide, and prohibits any other alternative unless approved by the voters. Following the release of a Federal Highway Administration sponsored study which found that the tunnel is environmentally feasible and its costs would not differ significantly from the costs of a bypass, CALTRANS reversed it opposition to a tunnel at Devil's Slide. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing important legislation to ensure that funds already appropriated and obligated for Devil's Slide will remain available to CALTRANS to build the tunnel at Devil's Slide. This legislation, entitled the ``Devil's Slide Tunnel Act,'' will provide greater flexibility to State transportation officials to use Federal funds already appropriated by Congress to fix this vital transportation link. Joining me as cosponsors of this legislation are bipartisan members of the bay area congressional delegation whose constituents are most affected by the Devil's Slide highway problem--my colleagues, Tom Campbell, of San Jose, Anna Eshoo of Atherton, and Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco. Mr. Speaker, if local and State agencies and the citizens of a region determine that a better transportation alternative exists than the alternative for which funds have been obligated, then the Federal Government should grant greater funding flexibility, as long as all other Federal laws are compiled with. It is important that we not permit these funds to lapse. The rebuilding of a severely damaged highway in its existing location may no longer be feasible, and in such cases funds already available to a community should continue to be available. History tell us that Devil's Slide will wash out again--it is only a matter of time. It is my hope that swift enactment of this legislation will ensure a permanent solution to the residents of the Coastside. I urge my colleagues to support the ``Devil's Slide Tunnel Act.''

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of October, we will mark the 40th anniversary of the outbreak of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. This is a particularly significant event because that uprising of the Hungarian people against communism and against the Soviet domination of the Hungarian nation was one of the most dramatic and critical events of the cold war era. As we reach the last days of October when the dramatic events unfolded 40 years ago, it is appropriate that we here in the United States--and particularly that we as Members of Congress--remember the events of 1956. It is most appropriate that we pay tribute to the brave people of Hungary who rose up against Soviet tanks and the heavily armed Red Army in an effort to win their freedom and regain their national independence. Mr. Speaker, one of the individuals who was a young man in Budapest at the time of those tumultuous events four decades ago was Dr. Charles Gati, who was one of the hundreds of thousands of Hungarians who fled their country in the aftermath of that tragic revolution. We are fortunate, indeed, to have him here as an American today, one of our finest scholars and analysts of Central and Eastern Europe.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on the 5th of October in 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed bipartisan legislation making Raoul Wallenberg an honorary citizen of the United States--the second individual after Sir Winston Churchill to be so honored. That legislation, Mr. Speaker, was the first bill that I introduced as a Member of Congress, and it was my first bill to become law. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the Congress the information that the City Council of Chicago--at the request of Jan Muller and the Raoul Wallenberg Committee of Chicago--has approved the creation of ``a salient place where America can pay tribute to a magnificent Hero--Raoul Wallenberg.'' The area, to be named the Raoul Wallenberg Place, is located on State Street between Wacker Drive and Lake Street. It is most appropriate that we in the United States honor Raoul Wallenberg. It was at the request of the Government of the United States that Wallenberg--a member of the leading banking family of Sweden--left the security and comfort of Stockholm in the summer of 1944 and traveled to the hell and chaos of Budapest under Nazi occupation. Through innovative and creative confrontations with Nazi officials, Wallenberg saved the lives of tens of thousands who otherwise would have been killed by the Nazi war machine. Mr. Speaker, the dedication and the formal renaming of ``The Raoul Wallenberg Place'' will take place on Friday, October 4, at 10:30 a.m. at the intersection of Wacker Drive and State Street in Chicago. The timing of the dedication has been chosen to coincide with the 15th anniversary of the signing of the legislation naming Raoul Wallenberg an honorary U.S. citizen. The first announcement of the Chicago City Council's decision was made on August 4 this year, the 84th birthday of Wallenberg. Among those participating in the dedication ceremony next week will be Chicago Alderman Burton F. Natarus, Consul General of Israel Arthur Avnon, and distinguished representatives of the Jewish and Christian communities in the Chicago area. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay particular tribute to Jan Muller. This tribute to Raoul Wallenberg is in response to a proposal he made to the Chicago City Council. Mr. Muller's steadfast commitment to honoring Raoul Wallenberg has been an inspiration to all throughout the world who honor this great Swedish humanitarian. Jan is the founder and president of the Raoul Wallenberg Committee of Chicago, an organization that is dedicated to humanitarian education. Mr. Muller is the founding president and managing director of the NordicCenter, dedicated to enhancing Scandinavian cultural arts and business in North America. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in commending Jan Muller and the City Council of Chicago for this outstanding and appropriate tribute to Raoul Wallenberg.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ilene Munetz Pachman--a Bucks County, PA, freelance writer, educator, and author of children's books--who spent 4 years of determined effort to convince the United States Postal Service to issue a commemorative stamp in honor of the Swedish Holocaust hero Raoul Wallenberg. On May 8 of this year, a number of my colleagues from the House and the Senate joined with me, Mrs. Pachman, Postmaster General Marvin Runyan, Postal Service Governor S. David Fineman, and my wife, Annette, in unveiling the design of the Wallenberg stamp. This stamp will be issued next year. It is highly appropriate to have a U.S. stamp honoring Wallenberg. This Swedish businessman, a member of Sweden's most prominent banking and business family, went to Budapest, Hungary, at the request of the United States Government in 1944 in a desperate effort to save the lives of Jewish victims of the Nazi extermination machine. Through his incredible struggle, he saved the lives of tens of thousands. Mrs. Pachman first learned about Wallenberg at her synagogue. Initially, she wrote articles about him. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as his fate continues to be a mystery, she was determined to see that he continued to have a high profile. In continuing her efforts, Ilene said that she was inspired by the success of my wife, Annette, in bringing recognition to Raoul Wallenberg's extraordinary deeds. Mr. Speaker, in 1992, about the time that a U.S. stamp was issued with Elvis Presley, Mrs. Pachman focused on the importance of honoring Raoul Wallenberg with a U.S. commemorative stamp. ``Our children need genuine heroes,'' she told me. ``With the precious name and likeness of Wallenberg coming into millions of American homes, via a stamp, his altruism will be discussed and, hopefully, his goodness emulated.'' Often squeezing as many as 40 hours a week for correspondence and telephone networking into the time left from her professional and family life, Mrs, Pachman enlisted the support of a broad spectrum of civil rights and human rights leaders, including Elie Wiesel, Coretta Scott King, Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley, Steven Spielberg, and president of the American Red Cross, Elizabeth Dole. Confident that the Wallenberg stamp would be supported by Americans of all faiths, she enlisted support from Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, the National Council of Churches, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, B'nai B'righ International, and other organizations. She also received the support of Senators Carl Levin and Paul Wellstone and Mrs. Pachman's own representative, Congressman Jim Greenwood, in addition to the support of more than 100 other Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Ilene Pachman for her efforts in winning support for the issuing of a stamp to honor Raoul Wallenberg and to perpetuate the memoray of that outstanding humanitarian.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, since we all expect that the Congress will adjourn within the next few days, I want to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to the Republic of China on Taiwan just a few days early. The national holiday is celebrated on October 10. October 10 of this year marks the 85th anniversary of the Chinese revolution of 1911 and the formation of the Republic of China. Mr. Speaker, this past year was an important but a difficult one for the people of Taiwan and the Government of Taiwan. The people of Taiwan faced a severe test when the Government went forward with open and democratic presidential elections while the People's Republic of China launched missiles less than 50 miles off the coast of Taiwan in an effort to intimidate the voters and the Government. Despite the Beijing government's attempts to bully and intimidate the voters of Taiwan, the Taiwanese electorate ignored the threat of military attack and participated in that election in overwhelming numbers. More than two-thirds of the eligible voters went to the polls. President Lee Teng-Hui won 54 percent of the vote in a four-way race and became the first popularly elected President in the history of the Republic of China. Mr. Speaker, Taiwan's continued independence and security is crucial to the United States economically, militarily, and politically. Economically, Taiwan is the sixth largest trading partner of the United States, and Taiwan is one of the only nations in Asia that has successfully reduced its trade deficit with our Nation every year for the past 10 years--an action that has been taken with the active support of the Taipei government. Militarily, Taiwan's survival is important to maintain balance in the Pacific region, and its continued military strength is an important element in contributing to the reduction of tensions throughout the region. Politically, Taiwan represents one of the finest examples in the world of the success of efforts to foster democracy and freedom and respect for human and civil rights. Taiwan began as a country desperately in need of American assistance for food, infrastructure, and military assistance. Now Taiwan is an example of incredible success--Taiwan now is an important source of assistance to other emerging democracies. Simply put, it is in the United State's interest to help maintain the independence and integrity of the democratic Republic of China on Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this occasion to welcome the new Representative of Taiwan in the United States, Dr. Jason Hu. Dr. Hu previously served as the head of the Government Information Office in Taipei and was a principal advisor to President Lee Teng-hui. His presence here is a clear signal that the Government of Taiwan greatly values a continuing, strong relationship between our two countries. I would also like to note that two of Taiwan's best diplomats are leaving positions here in Washington to take new senior positions in the Foreign Ministry in Taipei--Dr. Lyushen Shen and Mr. James Huang. Both of these senior have served their country well here in Washington and those of us who have had the opportunity to work with them will miss their knowledge, skill, and commitment. I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan on the occasion of the National Day this October 10. May the friendship and strong relations that have bound our two countries for many generations continue for many, many more.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, representatives of Hungary and Romania signed a ``Treaty of Understanding, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness'' in the Romanian city of Timisoara/Temesvar. The important document was signed by Hungarian Prime Minister Gyula Horn and Romanian Prime Minister Nicolae Vacaroiu. The treaty represents another milestone in the process of reconciliation and improved relations between these two important Central European countries. Mr. Speaker, with the support of our distinguished colleague from Ohio, Mr. Hoke, yesterday I introduced House Concurrent Resolution 220 commending the leaders of both countries for this important action. I invite my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this resolution and ask for their support of this important piece of legislation. The text of our resolution reads as follows: H. Con. Res. 220 Commending the Governments of Hungary and Romania on the occasion of the signing of a Treaty of Understanding, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness. Whereas on September 16, 1996, a ``Treaty of Understanding, Cooperation and good Neighborliness between Romania and the Republic of Hungary'' was signed by Gyula Horn, Prime Minister of the Republic of Hungary, and by Nicolae Vacaroiu, Prime Minister of Romania, in Timisoara/Temesvar, Romania; Whereas this agreement between the two governments is an important step in contributing to the stability of that region and to reconciliation and cooperation among the nations of Central and Eastern Europe; Whereas this agreement will enhance the participation of both countries in the Partnership for Peace program and will contribute to and facilitate their closer cooperation with the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the eventual entry of these countries into full NATO participation; and Whereas this agreement is a further significant step in the process of reconciliation between Hungary and Romania and reflects the desire and effort of both countries to improve their economic cooperation, to foster the free movement of peoples between their countries, to expand military relationships, and to increase cultural and educational cooperation: Now therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress-- (1) commends the farsighted leadership shown by both the government of Hungary and the government of Romania in reaching agreements on the Treaty of Understanding, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness signed on September 16, 1996; (2) commends the frank, open, and reasoned political dialogue between officials of Hungary and Romania which led to the treaty; (3) commends the two countries for their effort to foster improved relations in all fields; and (4) calls upon the President to utilize all available and appropriate means on behalf of the United States to support the implementation of the provisions of the ``Treaty of Understanding, Cooperation and good Neighborliness between Romania and the Republic of Hungary'' and to promote their efforts for regional cooperation as the best means of bringing these two countries into NATO and to ensure lasting security in the region.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, in just a few days we will mark the 15th anniversary of the adoption by the Congress and the signature by the President of legislation making Raoul Wallenberg an honorary citizen of the United States--the second individual after Sir Winston Churchill to be so honored by the Congress and the American people. As my colleagues know, Raoul Wallenbrg is the Holocaust hero who saved the lives of as many as 100,000 people in Hungary during 1944. His extraordinary achievement has been rightfully and appropriately honored around the world. Mr. Speaker, among the unique and important ways the memory of Raoul Wallenberg is honored, perpetuated, and memorialized is through the establishment of the Friends of Raoul Wallenberg, a nonprofit foundation organized in Washington, DC. In a statement explaining the purposes which motivated the creation of this foundation, the organizers said: ``The experience of this heroic individual demonstrates that violations of human rights are neither singular nor isolated, and that effective resistance in one such situation may not pertain to another. The Friends of Raoul Wallenberg concerns itself with the comparative analysis of the many forms of resistance and oppression and with the direct application of the resultant knowledge to current situations in which the full exercise of human rights is curtailed or endangered.'' Mr. Speaker, currently the Friends of Raoul Wallenberg Foundation is pursuing a two-part project. The first calls for the establishment of a network of individuals who are qualified and willing to promote the cause of human rights through active, peaceful engagement. The second is the convocation of a major symposium entitled ``Beyond Lamentation: Options in Preventing Genocidal Violence.'' The purpose of the symposium is to identify successful techniques and strategies for preventing and mitigating violence. An important source of these techniques is ``The Roots of Evil,'' an outstanding book by Professor Ervin Staub, a psychologist whose family was rescued from Budapest by Wallenberg himself. Staub--who has spent his professional life studying conflict from the point of view of the victim, the perpetrator, and witnesses--argues that passive bystanding promotes the spread of violence, whereas protest impedes it. This conference will take place in Stockholm on June 13-16, 1997. The conference will provide an opportunity for agencies and organizations with similar concerns to establish connections, and the ideas of Professor Staub will be examined in some detail. Targets will be identified for a his new army of ``young Raoul Wallenbergs'' who will learn how, when, and where to exert the great potential force of becoming ``active bystanders.'' Case studies that will be considered in detail are South Africa, where bystanders from many nations had a clear impact; the Scandinavian reactions to the Nazi Holocaust, which evidenced degrees of activity/passivity; the current problems between Israel and the Palestinians; and the case of Bosnia, where healing clearly is a critical need. Several important international leaders have agreed to participate in this conference, including the Dalai Lama, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Sadako Ogata, and Richard Holbrooke, the former United States Assistant Secretary of State, who negotiated the Dayton Peace Agreements on Bosnia. In addition to these individuals, journalists, scholars, and interested individuals with experience and background in these issues will also participate. The Friends of Raoul Wallenberg Foundation does not aim to compete with existing human rights and humanitarian organizations. It seeks to identify and explore the active steps that can be taken beyond the perpetuation of grief and the documentation of abuses. It offers a force and a remedy. History has thus far not shown us a way to eliminate group violence, but there are ways we can reduce that violence, and we must examine patterns and encourage constructive efforts. The Friends of Raoul Wallenberg is administered by a board consisting of Wilton S. Dillon, long-time director of international studies for the Smithsonian Institution; Stephen P. Goldman, foundation attorney and incorporator of Amnesty International, American Branch; Barry Jagoda, an investigative journalist and head of communications in the Carter White House; and Robert Walker, historian of social change, professor and first director of educational and public programs of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Mr. Speaker, the Congress of the United States relies for its effectiveness on educated, concerned, and active voters. Similarly, safety and liberty within the community of nations depends on educated and concerned activists capable of turning passive bystanding into active involvement. No action could more fittingly perpetuate and symbolize the honored legacy of Raoul Wallenberg.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week, a Treaty of Understanding, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness was signed by representatives of the Governments of Romania and Hungary in the Romanian city of Timisoara/Temesvar. The document was signed by leaders of both governments--Romanian President Ion Iliescu, Hungarian Prime Minister Gyula Horn, and Romanian Prime Minister Nicolae Vacaroiu. The treaty represents another milestone in the process of reconciliation and improved relations between these two important central European countries. The United States is particularly fortunate at this important time to have in Budapest and in Bucharest two outstanding ambassadors who have had an immense positive influence on U.S. relations with both countries and an equally positive influence as these two countries have made great strides in working to resolve the differences between them and to place their relationship on a higher level. Donald M. Blinken, the United States Ambassador to Hungary, has had a distinguished career as an investment banker with an international reputation. He has served as our envoy in Budapest since late 1993. Alfred H. Moses, the United States Ambassador to Romania, is a distinguished attorney from Washington, DC, who has been active in a number of national organizations. Today, the Washington Post has published a article written by these two prominent American diplomats which places in historical context the significance of the signing of the Treaty of Understanding, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that this article be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to give thoughtful consideration to the informed views of these outstanding representatives of the United States. [From the Washington Post, Sept. 19, 1996] Looking Beyond Bosnia (By Donald M. Blinken and Alfred H. Moses) The attention devoted to events in Bosnia overlooks other important and positive developments in the region which, in history's ledger, could prove equally important. This week Hungary and Romania signed a basic bilateral treaty marking the end to centuries of contention. The treaty has the same significance to Central Europe as the Franco-German reconciliation had to Western Europe. Similar treaties have been concluded between longtime rivals Slovakia and Hungary and between the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece. Historic rivalry between Hungary and Romania dates back at least a thousand years to the Magyar migrations from Central Asia. This led to Hungarian domination of the Carpathian basin, including modern day Transylvania, now in Romania, which was part of Hungary until 1919, when the Treaty of Trianon put an end to 300 years of Austro-Hungarian dominance in the region. Unfortunately, Trianon did not end the rivalry, and at the end of World War II, Budapest found itself occupied by Romanian troops for the second time in this century. The people of Romania and Hungary liberated themselves from communism seven years ago. But their rivalry remained. Now, together, they are engaged in one final act of liberation, this time from the unresolved legacies of their own tragic and angry past. The heart of the treaty also is the heart of post-Cold War Europe's security challenges: how to reconcile the rights and responsibilities of minorities with majorities in a part of the world where peoples and borders do not match. Bosnia is a brutal reminder of the power of these ethnic and nationalistic hatreds. It shows how dangerous this power is to peace not just in the Balkans but to Europe as a whole, and how important it is to defuse ethnic grievances before they explode. The basic treaty obligates both countries to protect the civil liberties and cultural identity of their national minorities. Education at all levels is guaranteed by the state in the minority's native tongue, as is the right to use one's historic language in administrative and judicial proceedings in areas of minority concentration. The same is true of road signs, print and broadcast media and almost every other aspect of communal life. The test, of course, will come with implementation, but the overwhelming support for the treaty in both countries is reason for optimism. Moreover, both sides are committed because both know the treaty clears an important hurdle to an even more historic goal: integration with the West. President Clinton's January 1994 decision, embraced by our allies, to open NATO to new members and new partners, together with efforts by the European Union to enlarge eastward, has given every nation of Central Europe an incentive to strengthen democracy and improve relations with its neighbors. Both Hungary and Romania have been active participants in the Partnership for Peace, the innovative U.S. initiative that has as one of its purposes to prepare NATO aspirants for eventual membership. Romania was the first to join. And Hungary hosts U.S. forces engaged in Bosnia. Troops from both countries participate in joint Partnership for Peace exercises on the territory of the other and are serving with the implementation force in Bosnia. NATO and the European Union have made it clear that states aspiring to membership that have unresolved border disputes or are unable to respect international norms on the treatment of minorities ``need not apply.'' This clear message moved Hungary and Romania to look beyond traditional boundaries and historical divisions toward a new vision of a secure and prosperous continent no longer mired in the conflicts of the past. In this spirit, both nations have committed in the basic treaty to support NATO and EU membership for the other. By embracing countries in Central Europe that show the will and the means to contribute to the stability and prosperity of the continent as a whole, the EU and NATO can help bring an end to historic enmities based on ethnic, cultural and religious differences, including the historic divide between Catholic West and Orthodox East. The example of Hungary and Romania may point to the end of a millennium of Central European history marked by perpetual conflict and human tragedies past counting.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, just a few hours ago earlier today, a Treaty of Understanding, Cooperation, and Good Neighborliness was signed by representatives of the Governments of Romania and Hungary. The signing took place in Romanian city of Timisoara/Temesvar with leaders of both Governments--Romanian President Ion Iliescu, Hungarian Prime Minister Gyula Horn, Romanian Prime Minister Nicolae Vacaroiu. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic occasion and this is a historic document. The leaders of both Governments deserve our commendation and our congratulations for their foresight and their efforts in seeking to reconcile outstanding differences between the two countries. The following is a statement that I made on the occasion of the treaty signing: Statement of Congressman Tom Lantos on the Signing of the Treaty of Understanding, Cooperation, and Good Neighborliness Between Romania and the Republic of Hungary I wholeheartedly welcome the signing of the ``Treaty of Understanding, Cooperation, and Good Neighborliness between Romania and the Republic of Hungary,'' and I commend the farsighted leadership that has been shown by both the government of Hungary and the government of Romania in reaching agreement on this document. The negotiations have not been easy. The Romanian government faced a fractious internal division over the treaty, and the Hungarian parliament had a lengthy debate on the matter. This treaty will be of benefit to both Hungary and Romania, and it will be an important element contributing to the stability of that region. It is my sincere hope that the good faith implementation of this document will be of benefit to ethnic Hungarians living in Romania. It is also my hope and expectation that this agreement will accelerate and facilitate the entry of each of these two countries into membership in the North Atlantic Treaty and into full economic integration with the European Union. It is significant and it is symbolically important that the signing of the treaty will take place in Timisoara/Temesvar, just a few miles from the borders of the former Yugoslavia. Hungary and Romania have faced their differences, they have conducted a frank and open and reasoned political dialogue, and they have both compromised in reaching this agreement. Their reasoned dialogue and mutual respect stands in sharp and dramatic contrast to the tragic violence and bloodshed that has convulsed Bosnia and other areas of the former Yugoslavia. I want to emphasize that the signing of this treaty constitutes another significant step in the process of reconciliation between Hungary and Romania. Both countries have been active in their efforts to improve economic cooperation, to foster the free movement of peoples between their countries, to expand military relationships, and to increase cultural and educational cooperation. The signing of this treaty will lead to greater cooperation in all of these important fields. I congratulate the leaders of both governments for their efforts and for their statesmanship.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks ago the American people were treated to a confusing spectacle in San Diego. The platform adopted by the Republican Party 1 week before the Republican convention reflected the same extremist, Contract-With-America rhetoric that we in the Congress have witnessed for the past 20 months. This is the same extremist program that the majority of the American people have clearly and unequivocally rejected. The following week, a tightly-scripted convention took place in San Diego which ignored the existence of this radical document. That same convention--for obvious reasons--also ignored the so-called Contract With America. The Republican Presidential candidate, former Senator Robert Dole, told the press he had not read his party's platform. The Republican platform, however, does deserve to be read, Mr. Speaker, because it is important for the American people to know the views of those who are in the majority within the Republican Party. The Republican platform tells us the views of the people who will play leading roles if there should be a Dole administration--which, I hasten to add, I sincerely hope there will not be. Mr. Speaker, an excellent analysis and summary of the Republican platform appeared as an editorial in the September 2 issue of The New Republic. I ask that this excellent editorial be placed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to read it. This editorial gives an excellent summary of some of the most egregious and disturbing problems with that extremist document. [From the New Republic, Sept. 2, 1996] Platform Diving Is the Republican platform worth reading? Not to Bob Dole, who still hasn't found the time, nor to the GOP's oh-so- moderate convention speakers, who appear chosen largely because they disagree with its plank on abortion (criminalize it, even when the mother's life is at stake). But although the platform is, predictably, a farrago of inoffensive pabulum (``We are the party of the American family, educating children, caring for the sick . . .'') and unintended hilarity (``Prisons should not be places of rest and relaxation''), it still provides a useful glimpse into the contradictions of what remains the closest thing America has to a majority party. Take, for example, the planks on terrorism, which both excoriate President Clinton for coddling terrorists and pander to the GOP's Ruby Ridge wing: ``To take away the liberty of the American people while fighting terrorism is repugnant to the history and character of our nation.'' How will the anti-big government Republicans fight terrorism while opposing things like taggants to trace bomb-powder? Establish a ``blue ribbon'' commission. Nothing scares killers like a panel of experts. Elsewhere, the platform gets similarly caught between its enthusiasm for states' rights and its insistence that they do the right-wing thing. The GOP would ``require the original sponsor of [any] proposed federal legislation to cite specific constitutional authority for the measure.'' Yet the platform cites no such authority for its own calls to nationalize product-liability law and to force legal reforms upon the states: ``restore limited liability'' to churches ``to provide protection against profit-seeking lawsuits,'' ``eliminate the use of junk science'' by ``opportunistic attorneys'' and so on. Along with scrapping the Education Department, the platform says plainly, ``the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in the school curricula.'' But a few lines later comes a truly bizarre call for Napoleonic micromanagement: an exhortation to ``requir[e] our public schools to dedicate one full day each year to studying the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.'' Why not a week? For when the Republicans get through with the Constitution, there'll be a lot more of it to study. A cursory count yields calls for six new amendments: to extend Fourteenth Amendment citizenship protections to the unborn; to deny them to the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S.; to protect ``victims' rights''; and, of course, to outlaw the various forms of mutilation and political adornment that might fall under the category of ``desecration'' of the American flag. Banning abortion and flag-burning are hardy perennials, and victims' rights, too, is becoming a familiar pander. The denial of birthright citizenship, however--a radical shift in our notion of Americanhood--demands vociferous rebuttal from all responsible quarters. In its economic planks, the platform states, ```Research and development is our commitment to the future.'' It then endorses ``de-emphasizing the role of government''--that is, cutting spending--on R&D, which is what the GOP Congress proposed. The next paragraph praises a Dole-sponsored law that expanded federally funded research. The GOP sounds similarly confused on homeownership, which, it declares, ``is not something government gives to the people, but rather something they can attain for themselves. . . .'' Two sentences later, it reiterates support for the mortgage interest tax deduction, a subsidy the government provides to boost homeownership. On foreign policy, the platform betrays open warfare between the party's neocons and its America-firsters. ``We vigorously support restoring the promotion of democracy worldwide,'' the preamble announces. How? Not by using economic aid to reward poor countries for breaking with authoritarianism. That, the platform says, is ``social welfare spending in the Third World.'' The multinational disarmament and election-monitoring efforts that have given birth to democracy in Mozambique, Cambodia and El Salvador meet with reproof, too. ``Bill Clinton's peacekeeping operations and other global ventures'' haven't had ``any discernible benefit to U.S. national security.'' Of course not. Promoting democracy in impoverished corners of the globe isn't an expression of American interests in any direct way, it's an expression of American beliefs. But the Buchanan wing of the party doesn't think that America should have moral concerns beyond its borders. So the platform's specific foreign policy planks render its preamble meaningless. Bob Dole has, understandably, tried to bury this mishmash of confusion and dishonesty in the scripted moderation of San Diego. Still, if this is the best statement his party can offer about what it would do in office, what does it say about the policies he would pursue as president?