Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in both sadness and mourning to extend the condolences of myself and my family to Mrs. Alma Brown, their two children Michael and Tracey, and to the entire Brown family. Your husband, father, and mentor was indeed a unique man who graced the institutions which he diligently served. He was a man committed to the service of his country and to the fulfillment of a promise he had made to himself and the community that surrounded him in his youth. It was a promise that compelled him to demonstrate time and time again that America's diversity was a strength and not a weakness. It was a promise that elevated him from his beginnings in Harlem to the position of Secretary of Commerce where he served with distinction and ultimately died in that service. And above all, it was a promise that drove Secretary Brown to tirelessly break down the barriers that divided people. Ron Brown was a lawyer and skillful negotiator who became the first African-American chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Secretary Brown strongly believed in the promise of America and aggressively advanced policies and programs to accelerate the Nation's economic growth. He also became the first African-American to hold the office of U.S. Secretary of Commerce, and through his outstanding inspiration, vision and force of will, left an indelible stamp upon the Department of Commerce. His list of achievements reads longer than the endless accolades that have adorned his passage from this world into the next. Secretary Brown worked endlessly to champion the role of civilian technology and technological innovation as the means to ensure American job creation, economic prosperity, and a higher standard of living. Under his tenure, he worked to establish a nationwide network to help small businesses. He led trade development missions to five continents, touting the competitiveness of U.S. goods and services. Under his leadership, U.S. exports reached a record high. Ron Brown worked vigorously to remove outdated government-imposed obstacles that hindered U.S. exports, and he strongly believed in the competitiveness of American business. His dream was to make America stronger, and he remained steadfast to this commitment. Under Secretary Brown, United States exports to Japan increased by one-third. He advocated for $80 billion in projects and supported hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs. His vision and leadership included his understanding of the vital link between our economy and the integrity of our environment. He furthermore understood the critical importance of protecting intellectual property worldwide, and to this purpose he negotiated with countries around the world. There was a purpose to Secretary Brown's commitment that found fruition in his constant struggle to transcend all barriers. It is indeed befitting that this dedication will serve as his legacy; a befitting legacy that will outlive the demise of its creator. His passing will not detract from the quality of his achievement, but will rather inspire us all to achieve more from ourselves. His premature departure not only leaves a void, it also leaves a tradition that has taught America how to face and overcome adversity. His passing compels all of us to take note of his outstanding determination and pay respects to his commendable achievements. On this day, I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering a man who served his country faithfully in both life and in death.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call to the attention of my colleagues the Consumer Products Safe Testing Act which I recently introduced, along with thirty-two of our colleagues. This long-overdue legislation aims at scaling back outdated and burdensome federal regulations used by the FDA and other Federal agencies regarding toxicity testing of cosmetics, corrosives, and other substances. The bill calls on all Federal regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over toxicity testing to review and evaluate their regulations concerning animal acute toxicity testing. The bill establishes no new mandates regarding animal toxicity testing. For many years, the Federal Government has used animals to test the toxicity of consumer products. This bill seeks to establish, wherever possible, non-animal acute toxicity testing as an acceptable standard for Government regulations without compromising human safety. Development of new technology has achieved substantial gains in the field of non-animal alternatives for acute toxicity tests. Many cosmetic companies, including Avon, Revlon, Redken, Paul Mitchell, The Body Shop, and Nexxus, already use alternatives to animal testing for screening and developing their products. In addition, many biotechnology firms are developing non-animal tests to determine the safety of various consumer products they produce. These tests include Skintex by InVitro International and Testskin by Organogenisis, Inc., which use human skin equivalent to measure irritancy. InVitro has actually developed a series of non-animal test kits which evaluate and rank irritancy and toxicity of a wide variety of substances. Despite these advances, the Federal Government still relies on animals for toxicity testing. The result is that many companies at the cutting edge of non-animal technology are forced to market their products overseas. If the United States is to remain a world leader in biotechnology, we must reexamine our Federal regulations to reflect the advances in testing methods already in progress. If we fail to encourage developments in this field and continue using outdated federal regulations, we run the risk of falling behind the rest of the industrialized world and losing our position as a world leader in science. By calling on the Federal Government to reevaluate its regulations on toxicity testing to include non-animal tests wherever possible, the Consumer Products Safe Testing Act will encourage U.S. companies to develop and market non-animal testing products in the United States. Non-animal alternatives to toxicity tests, in addition to being more humane, produce better data and reduce costs over the long term. Scientists agree that, despite the usefulness of animals for testing purposes, human cells and tissue produce more accurate results. As technology progresses to develop an acceptable battery of tests, non- animal toxicity testing can provide a more cost effective method of testing products. Savings can be realized from reduction in animal care and storage, in addition to time saved. Time involved in product testing remains a crucial factor. Many product development companies spend large amounts of time and resources in the government regulatory process. Animal testing often takes several years to complete. If acceptable alternatives are developed, this would save the producer, as well as the regulatory agency, time and money during the lengthy and cumbersome approval process. In asking the Federal Government to review its regulations concerning toxicity testing, the bill takes a bite out of federal regulation, while ensuring consumers' safety. In recognition of the contribution animal tests make to the medical community, the bill specifically exempts all medical research. Only regulations regarding toxicity testing are affected. I am delighted to sponsor the Consumer Products Safe Testing Act. This legislation will move towards ensuring that the Federal Government treats non-animal acute toxicity testing as an acceptable standard and that outdated and cumbersome regulations are reviewed and reevaluated.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we consider this resolution, a few feet from this Chamber in the presence of members of the Supreme Court, our colleagues and a vast number of individuals who are either survivors of the Holocaust or children of survivors, we are commemorating the day that has been set aside for remembering this most heinous of all crimes. It is a sad commentary on the absurdity of our times that an event as profoundly documented as the Holocaust would need to be reemphasized as a reality. One and a half million innocent children were among the 6 million men, women, and little ones who were consumed in the flames of hatred that represented the Holocaust. Learned and simple, rich and poor, young and old, religious and nonbeliever, they were all consumed by the flames of the Holocaust. As the only Member of Congress who is a survivor of the Holocaust, I am calling on all of my colleagues every year to remember this event, not only for its historic significance but so that similar events, comparable events, events of mass destruction of human beings, such as the ones we have seen lately in both Africa and the former Yugoslavia, should not take place. As we remember the Holocaust, we also must pay tribute to the greatest pedagogic institution on the face of this planet, the Holocaust Memorial Museum. This museum, in our Nation's Capital, is the most effective instrument of teaching generations yet unborn that we are in fact our brother's and sister's keeper and fanatic hatreds, bigotries, and discrimination have no place in a civilized society. I suspect this particular year, which is the 50th year of terminating the Nuremberg trials which brought to justice the leaders of this monstrosity, the people who demanded this mass murder, it is appropriate for all of us to pause and to rededicate ourselves to recognizing the beauty of our different approaches to religion and life. That our variety is not a problem but a thing to be celebrated and honored. I call on all of my colleagues to remember the Holocaust and to pay tribute to the Holocaust Memorial Museum as a primary instrument of teaching about our common humanity. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], who in his own work here in the Congress has done so much to preserve a society under laws.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel], my friend and distinguished colleague, an indefatigable fighter for human rights and decency.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is important in discussing this issue that we understand that the Holocaust did not begin with gas chambers. The Holocaust began with words of hate, with words of bigotry, with words of intolerance. And every time in our own time when we are confronted with words of bigotry and hate and intolerance, it is important that we nip those manifestations of inhumanity in the bud, because, if allowed to flourish, they will lead to unspeakable acts of horror, such as the ones we have witnessed in the Holocaust. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, Herb Caen, a truly extraordinary talent in the world of journalism, joined an elite group of journalists last week when he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize. He received a special Pulitzer Award that recognizes his unique and enormous contributions to the city that he loves with all his heart. For almost 58 years, Herb Caen has delighted residents of San Francisco and the surrounding communities with stories and thoughts on our unique and wonderful ``City by the Bay.'' Herb Caen fills his daily 1,000-word column with an incredible range of items, from political platforms to society gossip to humorous encounters with the many interesting individuals within the rich and diverse city of San Francisco. While there is almost always a laugh contained in Herb Caen's column, he did not shy away from expressing controversial opinions on issues concerning the city and the country. I am delighted that the Pulitzer board recognized these extraordinary qualities when they conferred this special prize, only the fifth in the history of the awards. The only person who can adequately express the importance of this award to the San Francisco community is Herb Caen himself. So, Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to read the column which appeared the day after the award was announced in order to get a good taste of the wit and elegance which earned Herb Caen this well-deserved honor. Hey, Look Me Over! (By Herb Caen) ``Pulitzer Prizewinning columnist.'' Well, it does have a certain ring to it. And it will definitely add a touch of class to the obituary, which has been moldering away in the morgue for years. I'm not trying to be morbid in the Edgar Allan Poe mode. ``Morgue'' is what old newshounds call their paper's library, and it's somebody's job to keep the obits up to date. ``Pulitzer Prizewinning columnist'' will also juice up the resume if I ever have to start jobhunting again. Don't laugh. Downsizing is the order of the day. I command a large salary, several dollars a week over scale. I could well be on the short list for the gold-plated watch and farewell handshake, thereby making room on the payroll for the pitcher and running back we so desperately need. I got the word that I'd won a Pulitzer late yesterday morning when Karyn Hunt of the local Associated Press bureau called and asked for a statment. I thought she was kidding because I happen to know she's a great kidder. How do I know? Because--and here's your item--Karyn once worked for me, manning the phones and checking stories. She got out as soon as she could and has colorful stories to tell about what a mizzerable person I am to work for, but I digress. Actually, I'm not that hard to work for. Ask Carole Vernier, who works for me now. On second thought, don't ask Carole. I do get a little difficult around deadline. I am no longer digressing, I am regressing. Say, can the Pulitzer board!--and thank you thank you thank you whoever your are--where was I? Oh yes, can the board take the prize back once it has been bestowed? This could well be a historic test. Anyway, when Karyn of the AP called for a comment, I said ``A little late for April Fool jokes, isn't it?'' She finally convinced me this was for real, whereupon I fell back on the old barnyard joke whose punchline is ``What a pullet surprise,'' laying an egg in the process. ``Be serious,'' she said, sternly, ``I'm on deadline.'' ``You're on deadline?'' I snapped. ``Whaddya think I'm on, a Stairmaster? And you know how I get at deadline time,'' In truth, my thoughts were so scattered and my surprise, pullet or otherwise, so genuine that I had no statement to make beyond ``Duh, I'll get back to you.'' What I think happened is that I outlasted the Pulitzer board members. They kept waiting for me to pop off, so they wouldn't have to think about that West Coast noodnik any longer, and when I passed 80 they caved in. About 25 years ago, Art Hoppe and I made a solemn pact, sealed in blood: If either or both of us ever won a Pulitzer, we'd refuse to accept it. That's because we felt that a lot of columnists who didn't deserve the prize were winning it. Besides, the years were rolling along without a nod from Olympus, which would make it easy for him or me to say coldly, ``Too late, ladies and gentlemen, too late.'' Well, when the word came through yesterday, I was in a quandary. A sacred vow sealed with a vile oath is not to be broken lightly. As I was tentatively rehearsing variations on ``I don't need no steenkin' prizes,'' Hoppe poked his head into my office and said ``Forget it. I release you.'' That is one of several reasons I think Art Hoppe deserved a Pulitzer a long time ago. No, I never expected to win the gonfalon, the gong, the biggie. Year after year I studied the columns of prizewinners and discerned a pattern: To win a Pulitzer, it is necessary to be serious, ready to render learned opinions on matters of importance not only to the nation but to a waiting world. A three-dot columnist in a smallish city on the coast hardly seems worthy of a place in the pantheon. Walter Winchell, my original inspiration, never won anything of note, and he used even more dots than I, to excellent effect. It's true that satirical columns picked up a prize from time to time, as long as they weren't too funny. I will not deny that although I am not often funny, I am definitely silly and that seemed to me the kiss of death. What I received yesterday, said the AP, was ``a special award for what the Pulitzer board described as `his extraordinary and continuing contribution as a voice and a conscience of his city.' '' I can be serious about that. I am as seriously touched--nay, overwhelmed--as I am seriously in love with ``my'' city. The Pulitzer, coming on the heels of my 80th birthday last week, with its attendant tributes and demonstrations of friendship, has rendered me limp with gratitude, speechless with swirling thoughts impossible to articulate. Mixed up somewhere in the award, I figure, is a streak of sentimental regard for an old party who has been grinding it out, year after year, and, at the same time, a salute to longevity, for which I thank my German mama and my French papa who had the good taste to come to this loveliest of cities so long ago. This is also, of course, a victory for the mechanical typewriter over the burgeoning forces of cyberspace. I hereby hub my Royal, a brand name that is currently being dragged through the mud. The suspected Unabomber is said to have written his manifesto on a 40-year-old Royal, the same age as mine. As for the part about being ``the conscience of the city,'' this city had one--plus great style--long before I came down the river from Sacramento. The city's overriding sense of fair play always appealed to me and I have been delighted to get the chance to help keep it alive. About being ``the voice,'' I seem to have lost it at the moment, being speechless with surprise. All I can manage to croak is, ``For columns like this, they give a Pulitzer?''

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the distinguished chairman of our committee for his leadership on this bill and on so many other matters. I rise in strong support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy], my good friend and distinguished colleague.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this Congress--now under new management, as my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle have repeatedly emphasized--has been long on rhetoric and extremely short on accomplishments. In the first session, we had the largest number of recorded votes in recent memory--and the fewest number of bills passed in recent memory. I hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, that the limited accomplishments of this Congress' new management had little to do with Presidential vetoes. It has a great deal to do with poor quality legislation and extremist legislation that has not found support even among the Republican majority in the other body. It has a great deal to do with partisan posturing while ignoring the importance of bipartisan cooperation and good government. Today, Mr. Speaker, we are once again engaged in another exercise of symbolism rather than substance as we consider House Joint Resolution 159/169, to require a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress in order to increase tax revenues. No one likes to pay taxes, and no one likes to pick up the tab after lunch. But just as there is no free lunch, taxes are the price we pay in order to participate in the benefits of civilized society. Today is April 15--tax day, the deadline by which all of us must file our Federal income taxes. In order to take advantage of media interest in taxes, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are bringing to the floor a bill which does little to deal with the burden of taxation, a bill which does little to deal with the issue of fairness in taxation. Once again we are seeing this House posture rather than perform. We are taking time today to consider an ill-conceived and ill- drafted resolution that will go nowhere, a resolution that this House should not even take the time to consider, a resolution that is so flawed that it should not be adopted. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the majority on the other side of the aisle has already had a super majority requirement, which was adopted last year as a rule of the House. The House Rules require a three-fifth vote for any tax increase. But have they followed their own super-majority rule in the House? Since the adoption of the House Rule 16 months ago, the House majority has waived the rule three times for specific legislation. The hypocrisy is appalling, Mr. Speaker. House Joint Resolution 159/169, which we are considering, has a number of serious flaws. First, it is a violation of the fundamental principle of majority rule that is a the heart of our democracy. Adopting this amendment would make democratic decision making more difficult. Requiring super majorities, in all but the most weighty and most fundamental issues, simply makes it even more difficult to govern. The paralysis we have seen in this House and between the House and the Senate over the past year would be considerably compounded by adding this new requirement. Second, this amendment would erect serious new barriers to deficit reduction. If we are to deal with our Nation's deficit we must have both spending cuts and revenue increases in the years ahead. The requirement of a two-thirds vote for any legislation that raises revenues would make it difficult, if not impossible, to adopt legislation that balances program cuts and increased payments for government services. Under this amendment, even an increase in the fee charged visitors to our national parks would apparently require a two- thirds vote of the House and the Senate. A cut in the capital gains tax rate, according to official projections would result in an increase in tax revenues for the first few years, this it appears that a reduction in the capital gains tax rate would therefore require a two-thirds vote. The awkwardness of this requirement is obvious. Third, as with so much of the legislation that we have considered in this house over the past sixteen months, this provision will be of much greater benefit to the wealthiest and most powerful Americans at the expense of the rest of our people. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which has expressed its strong opposition to this resolution, stated: ``A two-thirds majority would be required to curb special interest tax benefits, which disproportionately benefit those at high income levels. By contrast, a simple majority vote would be required to cut federal programs, which primarily benefit the middle class and the poor.'' The Concord Coalition--the respected bipartisan organization established four years ago by former Senators Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts and Warren Rudman of New Hampshire ``to eliminate federal budget deficits and build a sound economy for future generations''--has expressed its opposition to this constitutional amendment. The Concord Coalition, which has taken fiscal responsibility very seriously, opposes this resolution and has announced that it will include this vote as a key vote for its 1996 congressional scorecard. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of serious and thoughtful analyses that have been made in connection with the legislation that we are considering today. The Washington Post published an excellent editorial on April 12 entitled ``Showboating on Tax Day'' which raises very serious and thoughtful objections to the bill we are considering House Joint Resolution 159/169. As the Post argues: ``Issues like this ought not be raised to the constitutional level. If evaded, the amendment would breed contempt for the Constitution. If adhered to, it would weaken the government whose resolve it purports to strengthen.'' Mr. Chairman, I ask that the text of this Washington Post editorial be included in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. Mr. Speaker, this House has been too long on symbolism and too short on legislation that is meaningful to the American people. I urge my colleagues to oppose this symbolic resolution before us today. Let us move on to the serious and important business of the people. Showboating on Tax Day The House is scheduled to vote next week on a constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds votes of both houses to pass tax increases. It's a bad idea whose effect would likely be not so much to limit tax increases as to raise their political price by giving minorities the power to hold the majority hostage. The Republicans are staging the vote to demonstrate on tax day their devotion to lower taxes and smaller government. They should find a better way to do that than to turn the Constitution into a political toy. The amendment is being advanced in the name of fiscal responsibility, but the effect would be to make a responsible fiscal policy harder to achieve. The budget is structurally out of balance now. It can only become more so as the baby boomers begin to retire; the day is not that far off. Aid to the elderly, mainly in the form of Social Security and Medicare, already makes up close to half the budget for other than interest and defense. Left to itself, the share will increase; to protect the rest of government and keep the deficit from rising, there will be pressure to cut the net cost of these programs. If all the cost cutting takes the form of benefit reductions, the standard of living of the elderly, so painfully raised in recent years, will be adversely affected. For the sake of social equity as well as fiscal responsibility, there will need to be tax increases as well as benefit cuts. In the face of a problem as fundamental as this, why, except for misplaced ideology, make the decent solution harder to achieve? The amendment tries to use a change in procedure to achieve a particular policy result. All kinds of questions of interpretation instantly arise. The Republicans want to cut the capital gains tax. As part of the argument in favor, they say that at least at first it will add to revenues rather than reduce them, because it will generate more sales of assets. If you have cut that supposedly adds to revenues, does that mean you need a two-thirds vote in both houses, or will simple majorities suffice? Over what time periods do you measure? Who does the measuring, and what if they turn out to be wrong? Issues like this ought not be raised to the constitutional level. If evaded, the amendment would breed contempt for the Constitution. If adhered to, it would weaken the government whose resolve it purports to strengthen. If it's hard to assemble majorities for responsible budgets, how much harder to assemble two-thirds. This is a showy proposal meant to make its supporters look good on tax day. What it does instead is make them look like another bunch of pols in search of another gimmick. The House should vote this amendment down.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced in the House today House Joint Resolution 171 which proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to permit the Congress to limit contributions and expenditures in elections for Federal office. This amendment--when it is approved by the requisite two-thirds majority of each house of the Congress and ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States--clarifies that the Congress has the power to set limits on contributions and expenditures in support of, or in opposition to, any candidate for Federal office. This resolution is identical to one introduced earlier this year in the other body by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley]. As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1976 in the case of Buckley versus Valeo, restrictions on wealthy individuals using their own money to--in effect--buy a political office have been held to be equivalent to restrictions on free speech. Efforts to restrict the independent expenditures of moneyed special interests for or against a particular candidate have likewise been held to be a restriction on free speech. Mr. Speaker, my proposed amendment to the Constitution will reverse the ruling of the Supreme Court in Buckley versus Valeo. The effect of the Court's decision in that case was to equate money with free speech. The effect of this amendment is to make clear that money is not speech. In the very appropriate words of Senator Bradley, ``A rich man's wallet does not merit the same protection as a poor man's soapbox.'' The time has come, Mr. Speaker, for us to clarify through an amendment to the Constitution that simple possession of money does not mean you have the better argument. Possession of money does not mean you are the better candidate. The time has come for the Congress to have the authority to regulate political expenditures of millionaries-- like Ross Perot or Steve Forbes or Michael Huffington in the political arena. In the case of these three men and others who have enjoyed the blessing of wealth, we applaud their ability to make money, we commend their business acumen, and we are delighted, in some cases, for their good fortune in having wealthy parents. At the same time, however, we do not think that any of those qualities entitles them to special access to the marketplace of ideas. It is essential for the health and well-being of our democracy that the Congress have the ability to assure a level playing field in elections for Federal offices. The amendment to our Constitution that I am introducing today will assure that Congress can assure a level playing field. One of the fundamental principles that is the basis of our democratic system of Government and our democratic Nation is the principle of freedom of speech. The fundamental concept is that if all ideas and all points of view are subjected to the same critical scrutiny in the marketplace of ideas, those ideas which are correct and true and superior will win out over those ideas which are inferior and erroneous and false. Our firm commitment to the principle of freedom of the press in our country flows from this commitment to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Although, I think, all of us at one time or another have questioned the accuracy or the impartiality or the dispassion of the American news media, all of us are firmly committed to the principle that there must be a free, unfettered press. The multiplicity of free voices of expression is absolutely essential to the functioning of our democratic Government. In our democratic system, this principle of freedom of expression is a vital component of our process of electing Government officials. Only if there is full and open airing of the ideas for and against and about individual candidates for public office can we know which women and men are best able to represent us as President, Vice President, or as a Member of the Senate or the House. The fundamental requirement, Mr. Speaker, is that all ideas, that all speech, have reasonably fair and equal access to the market place of ideas--that good ideas and bad ideas and foolish ideas and brilliant ideas have equal access to the American people. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the greatest threat to the application of the principles of free speech in our electoral process is the distorting effect of money. Under our present laws and the current interpretation of the Constitution and our laws by our Supreme Court, if you have money, your ideas--regardless of how good or bad they may be--have unfair access to the market place of ideas. It is important that we break this link between money and speech--money does not entitle someone to special access. Money is in fact the element which distorts free speech, and by distorting free speech it distorts the full and fair and informed intelligent decisionmaking. Mr. Speaker, this constitutional amendment does not make the ultimate decision about how campaign financing should be reformed, but it is the essential first step in establishing beyond any doubt that the Congress has the authority to regulate spending on campaigns. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this constitutional amendment. This is the vital first step that we must take, and for the future of democracy in our country it is essential that we take it as quickly as possible. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the text of House Joint Resolution 171 be placed in the record: H.J. Res. 171 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to permit the Congress to limit contributions and expenditures in elections for Federal office. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress: ``article-- ``Section 1. The Congress shall have the power to set limits on expenditures made by, in support of, or in opposition to the nomination or election of any person to Federal office. ``Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to set limits on contributions by individuals or entities by, in support of, or in opposition to the nomination or election of any person to Federal office. ``Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.''.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my heartiest congratulations to President Lee Teng-hui who was chosen the first popularly elected President of Taiwan in direct, democratic elections, which were held over the past weekend. President Lee received 54 percent of the vote in a field of four candidates. The results of this election are a tribute to President Lee, who has played the leading role in completing the democratic transformation of Taiwan, a transformation which led to these first-ever democratic elections. I also wish to extend congratulations to Lien Chan, the democratically elected Vice President. Mr. Speaker, President Lee has served as the President of the Republic of China on Taiwan since 1988. He has long and close ties with the United States and with the American people. It is highly significant, Mr. Speaker, that President Lee was born on Taiwan in 1923. He attended Kyoto Imperial University, and received a bachelors degree from National Taiwan University in 1949. His studies in the United States include an M.A. from Iowa State University and a Ph.D. from Cornell University. Between 1949 and 1965 he was a member of the faculty of National Taiwan University, and he served many years as a professor there. His political experience includes service as the mayor of Taipei City, Governor of Taiwan Province, and Vice President of the Republic of China on Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, just 1 year ago, President Lee was invited by his alma mater, Cornell University, to visit the campus as a distinguished alumnus. The administration opposed granting him a visa for that visit. As my colleagues know, legislation that I introduced and which passed the House unanimously, put the Congress on record favoring granting him a visa. I am delighted that he was able to visit Cornell as President of Taiwan, and it is my sincere hope that he will have the opportunity to visit the United States as its democratically elected President. The real winners in Saturday's Taiwanese elections, Mr. Speaker, are not the candidates who won reelection--though I do not want to diminish the great victory which this election is for President Lee and Vice President Lien. The real winners in the elections are the people of Taiwan. They have made a democratic choice, they have conducted an exemplary campaign, and they have participated in the elections in numbers that are a tribute to the people of Taiwan. Despite appalling efforts at intimidation by the Government of the People's Republic of China, two-thirds of the eligible voters of Taiwan participated in the elections. That is a participation rate that exceeds ours here in the United States, Mr. Speaker. Their obvious desire for democracy and their responsible and thoughtful exercise of the franchise merit our most profound respect an praise. They are the real winners in the election. The second big winner in this election has been the friendship between the people of the United States and people of Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the action of this House last week in strongly affirming the commitment of the American People of Taiwan in the face of the threats and intimidation they faced from the bullies of Beijing. We have made clear our commitment to the democratic process in Taiwan, and it is extremely important that this be known both by the People of Taiwan and by the Government of the mainland. The big losers in this election, Mr. Speaker, are the bullies of Beijing--the leaders of the People's Republic of China who attempted with military maneuvers, missile firings, amphibious landings, and other similarly ruthless efforts at intimidation to affect the outcome of this election and to undermine the evolution of democracy in Taiwan. The bullies of Beijing miscalculated. They were proven wrong, and the people of Taiwan have demonstrated just how wrong they are. Democracy is stronger and more stable and more acceptable than the totalitarian and authoritarian rule of despots. The success of democratic elections in Taiwan will have a profound impact upon the mainland. As the generational change in the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party continues in Beijing, it is clear that the free and open and democratic elections in Taiwan have dealt the party dictatorship a great blow. The example of Taiwan will continue to affect what happens on the mainland. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues in this house to join me in paying tribute to President Lee Teng-hui and Vice President Lien Chan, and, in particular, in paying tribute to the people of Taiwan.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, a few days before the first free and democratic elections in Taiwan, Ambassador Benjamin Lu, the official representative of the Government of Taiwan here in the United States, made the following remarks to Members of Congress and others interested in a secure, free and prosperous Taiwan. I commend my colleagues' attention to his excellent remarks. Address by Ambassador Benjamin Lu Distinguished guests, and Ladies and Gentlemen: Thank you all for joining us today. I am delighted that so many good friends and associates could be here to share in this exciting event. The ROC has embarked on a path of political reform which is transforming Taiwan into a full democracy. Adding to the many institutions of personal freedom, human rights, popular elections, and a full-scale market economy which my country already enjoys, this week, on the 23rd of March, the people of Taiwan will conduct their first direct popular election for president of the Republic of China, an historic milestone in our democratization movement. At this very moment, there is a spirited campaign underway among four presidential candidates, including the incumbent President Lee Teng-Hui; a DPP candidate; and two others running as independents. By any standard, the Republic of China is functioning today as a genuine pluralistic democracy, with ample political choices and fully representational government. This is an amazing transformation in just one decade. The stark contrast with deteriorating political and human rights conditions on China's mainland today could not be more obvious. The Republic of China and the United States today share the same political ideology, principles and objectives. As fellow democracies with a closely intertwined history of friendship, cooperation and trade in this century, we have much in common. Moreover, there is much we can accomplish together for the sake of regional and international peace, freedom, and prosperity in the 21st century. The 21 million people on Taiwan are grateful that the United States has responded to mainland China's military exercises and missile tests in the Taiwan Strait, and reassured that Americans share our concern for the region's stability. A continued American presence in the area will discourage unnecessary escalation of tension and will help advance those principles and goals which are championed by your country and mine, as prospering democracies. The success of Taiwan's democratic reforms hopefully can influence mainland attitudes toward political reform in a positive way by encouraging the establishment of democratic process and institutions. Only within the framework of democracy can reunification be eventually achieved. Mainland China's coercive and hostile actions should cease immediately, allowing the process of democratic elections and free market commerce in the region to continue unimpeded. Let us work together to support the causes of peace and democracy throughout the Asia-Pacific region, and indeed throughout the world.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the following account was written by my wife Annette with the able assistance and research of Mandi Cohn. It is a belated attempt to pay a debt to an American hero whose important deeds in the early years of World War II have been overlooked by a majority of Americans. He is the only American recipient of the Righteous Among the Nations Award bestowed by Israel to non-Jews who risked their lives to save Jews during the Holocaust. Truly, I'm grateful to my wife for once more helping us to remember those who deserve to be honored and emulated. I am placing this statement in the Record on March 19 because this marks the 52d anniversary of the Nazi occupation of Hungary. It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we remember not only the tragedies but those few who, by putting their lives on the line, proved that it could have been detered. Varian Fry: A Righteous American In the summer of 1940 when the newspaper headlines in New York announced the fall of France to the Nazis, Varian Fry was way ahead of most Americans in realizing the full implication of these Nazis victories. In 1935 he had visited Germany on assignment for The Living Age magazine. He sensed the atmosphere of hatred and oppression Hitler brought to his country. While in Berlin he had seen the first great pogroms against the Jews. He saw young Nazis smash up Jewish-owned shops and watched in horror as they dragged people out in the streets and beat and kicked them almost to death. He watched as they dragged men and women, cut and bleeding down the street, hitting them with clubs, shouting and cursing vile names at them. When France fell to Hitler invading armies in 1940, thousands of refugees who had fled to Paris as their only escape from Nazi horrors had to flee to the as yet unoccupied southern part of France with Marseilles as their destination. Only after it was too late did they realize that they were caught in yet another trap. In order to appease Hitler, the new puppet government, under Marshall Petain, enacted one stringent decree after another against the Jews and political refugees. They closed the borders and agreed to turn over all refugee exit-visa applications to the Gestapo. As a result the very act of asking to leave was sufficient to guarantee instant arrest. Meanwhile in New York, Varian Fry, along with a few other prominent individuals, formed the Emergency Rescue Committee to try to help the beleaguered refugees in France. They managed to enlist the support of Eleanor Roosevelt and convince her of the imminent danger facing thousands of distinguished intellectuals, writers, scientists, academics, journalists, historians, musicians, opposition political leaders, and others. Eleanor Roosevelt was able to persuade the President to authorize 200 visas for the most prominent individuals in the group. This was the beginning of the extraordinary rescue mission for which Varian Fry promptly volunteered. With the help of the German writer Thomas Mann, Jacques Maritain and many others, a list of 200 names was formed, and Varian Fry was appointed by the Emergency Rescue Committee to go to France to head the mission. It was a difficult and complicated undertaking because he received very little support from official sources. He had to coax a passport out of the State Department, which at that time took a dim view of Americans travelling to Europe. Fry then persuaded the International YMCA to give him a letter identifying him as a relief worker with refugees. This gave him some kind of official status vis-a-vis the French puppet Government of Vichy. With $3,000 dollars taped to his leg, the list of 200 names which included such world famous persons as political scientist Hannah Arendt and painter Marc Chagall, but without any addresses or phone numbers to facilitate contact, he set out for the overcrowded and turbulent city of Marseilles. After a long and arduous trip he arrived on August 15, 1940, in Marseilles. When he finally settled in his dingy little hotel room he had to admit to himself that he had no idea how to begin searching for the individuals whose lives were now in his hands. He realized he needed help urgently to accomplish his mission. His first fortunate breakthrough came when he met with a brilliant young German economist, Dr. Albert Hirschman, who at the time was himself a refugee who had recently managed to escape from Germany. Hirschman became Fry's most trusted friend and assistant. They developed a warm friendship which greatly eased the stresses and strains they faced daily in their dangerous mission. Fry nicknamed Hirschman ``Beamish'' because no matter how desperate their situation was he kept smiling and beaming optimism. Eventually, Miriam Davenport, a young, energetic and resourceful art history student from Boston, joined them. She, like many others, left Paris when the Germans invaded the city. The three of them became friends and ``co-conspirators'' in one of the most daring and successful rescue operations of World War II. They opened their temporary ``office'' in an abandoned handbag factory in Marseilles. There from early in the morning until late at night Fry and his two young associates interviewed refugees. During each interview they wrote the necessary information about each refugee and placed it on an index card. After the last of the refugees departed each day, Fry, Beamish and their secretary, Lena Fishman, would adjourn to the bathroom and turn on all the water taps to foil any attempts at eavesdropping. There they would talk over any problems that surfaced during the day. Before leaving each day, Fry would spread the index cards containing names and notations on them in careful disarray on one of the desks so that he could tell if they had been tampered with and placed any incriminating documents behind the mirror inside the closet door. The biggest problem was to find an escape route, to find a way out of France illegally (across the border unnoticed without an exit visa) and enter Spain legally, where it was imperative to get the entry stamp in one's passport. Dr. Hirschman, who had fought briefly with a Republican unit in Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War, knew that in the mountains above Cerbre, a fishing village near the border of Spain, the French and Spanish frontier posts were placed so that neither was visible to the other. It was possible to climb the mountain on the French side without being seen by the guards while also managing not to overshoot the Spanish border station. Once across the border, with a stamped passport, the refugees were able to continue their journey legally. Albert Hirschman drew Varian Fry a sketch of his plan. This map, drawn in pencil on a little scrap of paper, was to become the crucial lifesaving document for thousands of refugees who eventually, with the help of Fry and his associates, fled to the United States, where they would make their most important contributions to the cultural history of western civilization. Once Fry and his associates worked out this complex routing, they had to acquire a large number of passports and blank identity cards, and find a skilled forger who could make them usable. To forge the documents, Fry engaged the services of a cheery, diminutive Austrian cartoonist named Bill Freier. Freier fled to France when the Germans entered Vienna in March, 1938. He spent his days drawing portraits of people and his nights in his hotel room altering passports. Unfortunately, Bill Freier paid a heavy price for his valiant efforts. He was arrested by the Gestapo and deported to the death camps in Germany. Amazingly, with courage, endurance and luck, Mr. Freier survived the camp until its liberation. Then he proceeded to walk across France until he found his wife and the four-year old son he had never seen. With all these pieces in place, Fry's underground ``railway'' was in business, and miraculously none of the refugees were ever caught. Fry succeeded in saving an incredible number of Europe's intellectual elite in spite of growing police surveillance and harassment. He succeeded in spite of the reluctance of some, the arrogant attitudes of others and the constant lack of cooperation, even discouragement, he received from American consular officials in Marseilles. Varian Fry's work came to an end on Friday, August 29, 1941, when he was taken into custody by agents of the French Secret Police and was deported to Spain. Unfortunately, once in the safety of the United States, the celebrated refugees Varian Fry rescued could find no time for him. Instead of recognition for his vitally significant and dangerous mission during the war, he was rejected, snubbed and forgotten. The State Department failed to apologize for seizing his passport and leaving him without identification behind enemy lines in France, enabling the Fascist French Secret Police to seize him. ``We can't support an American citizen who is helping people evade French law,'' a U.S. diplomat told Fry when he asked for help. In the United States Varian Fry wrote and lectured about the plight of Jews and other war refugees, and he accurately predicted the massacre of the Jews throughout Europe. His story is written in his book, ``Surrender on Demand,'' and the later version, ``Assignment: Rescue.'' Finally, Varian Fry received recognition for his efforts when he was awarded the Croix du Chevalier of the French Legion of Honor on April 12, 1967. In the summer of the same year Varian Fry died in his Connecticut home alone, leaving behind the unrecognized legacy of a heroic mission. He is survived by his wife, Annette, and three children. Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, opened an exhibit detailing his accomplishments. On February 2, 1996, he was honored in Jerusalem at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum. Varian Fry is the first and only American recipient of the Righteous Among the Nations Award, which is an honor bestowed by Israel to non-Jews who risked their lives to save Jews during the Holocaust. ``Fry was an American Oskar Schindler, an American Raoul Wallenberg,'' said an attending Israeli. Secretary of State Warren Christopher was the keynote speaker at the ceremony held belatedly to acknowledge Fry's heroism and humanity. On that occasion he said: We have come to pay tribute to Varian Fry--a remarkable man and a remarkable American. Regretfully, during his lifetime, his heroic actions never received the support they deserved from my government, particularly the State Department. Even today, Varian Fry's tale of courage and compassion is too little known by his own countrymen. It is therefore with pride, but also with humility, that I come here today, as America's Secretary of State, to honor this extraordinary man. His assignment was supposed to last three weeks. He remained in France 13 months. His initial orders were to help 200 individuals * * * he ended up rescuing close to 4,000. Operating under constant threat, without regard for his personal safety, Varian Fry worked tirelessly, using every means available, to secure safe passage for those who came to him, desperate for help. He remained in France long after the dangers to his life became apparent. His explanation was simple: ``I stayed'', he wrote, ``because the refugees needed me.'' And because he knew that he was truly their last hope. The measure of our faith is only restored by the knowledge that, in the fact of such evil, there were also men and women like Varian Fry. Otherwise ordinary individuals who were capable of summoning up extraordinary moral courage to confront and defy overwhelming brutality. Mr. Speaker, what Varian Fry accomplished in terms of saving lives, renewing our faith in humanity and enhancing our trust in people's willingness to act on behalf of the persecuted is unique in the history of World War II. His history of World War II. His work deserves to be honored formally by the United States.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the resolution we are considering today--House Concurrent Resolution 148-- which was introduced by my friend and colleague from California, Mr. Cox. I am pleased to be the first Democratic cosponsor of this bill. I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that our resolution is a profoundly bipartisan resolution. It reflects the concerns and interests of the vast majority of the Members of this body of both political parties. I would like to put this move on our part into perspective. We do not all agree on all aspects of United States-China policy, but we all agree that this saber-rattling by the ``Bullies of Beijing'' is preposterous, uncalled for, and profoundly destabilizing for the whole Pacific area. It is uncalled for, it is unjustified, and it is in response to only one act which should be sacred to all Americans--the upcoming free and open and democratic elections that will take place in Taiwan in a couple of days. Mr. Speaker, this sabre-rattling is a deliberate and boldfaced attempt to intimidate the people and the leadership of Taiwan in the crudest possible way--by firing missiles and by holding military maneuvers near Taiwan. The purpose is to intimidate Taiwan from taking this history-making step of holding an open and free and democratic election. That is what this saber-rattling is all about. It exposes nakedly the contrast between the free and open and democratic elections that will take place in Taiwan in just a few days and the dictatorial and oppressive police state that rules the mainland of China. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to realize that there are reasons why we got to where we are today in the strained relationship with the People's Republic of China--to the point that China is engaging in bullying tactics against Taiwan and the United States is sending a second aircraft carrier task force to that part of the world. In my judgment one of the principal reasons was the de-linking of human rights from most-favored-nation treatment of the People's Republic. I was one of the leaders and continue to be one of the leaders in the House of the group that feels that most-favored-nation treatment should not be extended to the People's Republic of China, which violates the human rights of its own people and the people of Tibet. Not all of my colleagues will vote to deny MFN to China when the President sends up the official waiver as is required in the next few months. But I predict that a majority of us in the Congress will. And for the first time in a long time MFN will be denied by the House of Representatives to China. The human rights considerations alone justify revoking MFN status from China. But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are numerous additional reasons for not granting China favored trading conditions. We should not extend MFN trade status to countries--like the People's Republic of China--which sell to rogue regimes--like Iran--technology which can contribute to the development of weapons of mass destruction or which sells missiles or the technology to develop missiles which can deliver weapons of mass destruction. We should not extend MFN status to a country which routinely takes advantage of our intellectual property rights and pirates the work of American citizens and American firms. I also think it is important to realize that this bullying sabre- rattling against Taiwan and its free elections is just the most recent manifestation of official Chinese disregard of rational and civilized acts that ought to govern relations between countries. I am thinking in particular of the gracious invitation by a great American university. Cornell University, to one of its most distinguished alumni, President Lee Teng-hui to visit his own alma mater. You may recall there was a great deal of concern on the part of the administration when I introduced a resolution simply expressing the sense of the Congress that President Lee should be granted a visa to visit the United States in order to visit Cornell University. That resolution, which I introduced, passed the House unanimously and passed the Senate almost unanimously. The administration recognized the strength of the views of the Members of Congress and of the American people and President Lee made a most successful visit to Cornell. It is outrageous that the Chinese Government has taken this visit of President Lee to the United States as a reason for recalling its ambassador to the United States and carrying out policies of belligerence against Taiwan and the United States. Finally, let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that the appalling behavior of the Chinese Government that we are witnessing in the Taiwan Strait today is the precise reason why 2 years ago I introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the House that the Olympic games should not be held in Beijing in the year 2000. It was the well-grounded concern that China was capable of precisely this pattern of irresponsible and reprehensible international action. Just imagine holding the Olympics games in a country which is intimidating its neighbor by firing missiles near its borders. That action completely violates the spirit and meaning of the Olympic games, and I am delighted that the vast majority of my colleagues in the House agreed with that resolution. The International Olympic Committee responsibly decided that Beijing should not be the venue of the Olympics in the year 2000. Mr. Speaker, we all earnestly hope that sanity will prevail in Beijing, that this saber-rattling will stop. But I think it is very important to eliminate all ambiguity. It is simply unacceptable on the basis of our agreements with both China and Taiwan to have any change in their relationship attempted or produced by military force. We are ready to accept anything that the people of Taiwan and China freely and democratically agree to, but we are not prepared to accept decisions that are forced by the firing of missiles from China against Taiwan. The resolution we are considering here today makes this point. Our resolution places the Congress on record to reaffirm our commitment that international relations with Taiwan should be conducted only by peaceful means and that the threat of military or economic coercion should not be the basis for international decisions. The resolution calls upon the People's Republic of China to live up to its commitment to work for the peaceful resolution of any disagreements with Taiwan and desist from military actions designed to intimidate Taiwan. This resolution also reaffirms the commitment of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion by other countries that might jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system of the people on Taiwan. We also affirm our support for the United States to maintain a naval presence sufficient to keep open the sea lanes in and near the Taiwan Strait and we express our view that the United States should assist in defending the people of Taiwan against violation, missile attack, or blockade by the People's Republic of China. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago, with my colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, In introduced House Resolution 378 deploring the recent actions by the government of Serbia restricting freedom of the press and freedom of expression and ending the legal authority of the Soros Foundation to continue its democracy-building and humanitarian activities in Serbia. The Washington Post in an excellent editorial last week commented on the Serbian decision to close the Soros Foundation and the measures taken by the government against the independent information media. I commend this excellent editorial to my colleagues, and I ask that it be placed in the Record. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 7, 1996] Shuttering Up Serbia No task is more important in the former Yugoslavia than building a nongovernmental civil society to open up the ingrown local regimes. And in no place is this work more vital than Serbia, the dominant and pace-setting part of the broken-up country. Finally, in this activity no one plays a larger individual role than George Soros, who, as U.S. Information Agency chief Joseph Duffey puts it, does what the U.S. government would do if it had the money. In a score of formerly Community countries, the billionaire speculator runs private foundations ``to enable people to do things which are not centrally determined but autonomous and spontaneous.'' Except not in Serbia. Not anymore. ``Even as he offered himself internationally as a man who could bring peace to Bosnia. Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic was further consolidating his power at home. He has made a special target of the local Soros Foundation, which does scholarships, summer camps and toys for children, relief for Serb refugees, medical institutions, nongovernmental organizations, the independent works. The foundation has sustained Serbia's only independent media, including the newspaper Nasa Borba and television's Studio B. But after a campaign (400 articles and broadcasts) in the official media, Serb authorities hoked up a technicality to close the foundation down. Evidently Mr. Milosevic, heading toward elections, wants no opposition, democratic or otherwise-- least of all an open society. The other day, a week after Belgrade closed out the Soros project, the State Department called on President Milosevic to ``reverse the trend of anti-democratic repressive measures.'' The question arises, however, whether Mr. Milosevic had not taken a contrary clue from the secretary of state's failure to receive the independent sector when he buzzed through Belgrade last month. The Serb leader seems to be carefully weighing what his-- undeniably considerable--contributions to ending the war will buy him in international acceptance of his tightening at home. Others must be careful not to let him conclude he has no further need to allow space for independent local actors and foreign organizations like the Soros Foundation. This is space for civility and tolerance, values the former Yugoslavia desperately needs.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, next week, a truly extraordinary American will become only the second American in history to be awarded the Vienna Prize by the Dr. Karl Renner Foundation. In recognition of his lifelong efforts on behalf of the human rights of the citizens of the world, Rabbi Arthur Schneier will receive this coveted award and a grant of $20,000 from the mayor of Vienna, Dr. Michael Haupl. Rabbi Arthur Schneier is internationally known for his leadership on behalf of human rights and religious freedom. A group of distinguished citizens of Vienna, including the mayor, members of the city Senate, and prominent members of the community, have chosen Rabbi Schneier for this honor because he is an international role model for the promotion of democratic societies. Rabbi Schneier joins with President Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia as the only non-Austrians to receive this distinguished award. By virtue of his international standing, Rabbi Schneier, as with President Havel, has promoted the ideas of democracy and freedom to the furthest reaches of the globe. As founder and president of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, Rabbi Schneier has met with Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Foreign Ministers, as well as religious leaders in the former Soviet Union, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Albania, Romania, Argentina, Cuba, Israel, Egypt, Morocco, Bulgaria, Germany, England, Ireland, the Vatican, and Turkey. Since 1965, when he led a group of political and religious leaders for an Appeal of Conscience rally protesting religious repression in the Soviet Union, he has championed the cause of religious freedom around the world. After the 1965 rally, he established the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, which continues to this day to provide effective and influential leadership on behalf of human rights. The Appeal of Conscience Foundation and Rabbi Schneier have been involved in a wide range of the world's most intractable problems and most egregious human rights violations. From meeting with Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev to discuss United States-Russian relations to meetings with Presidents of Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia to discuss a lasting peace in that troubled region, Rabbi Schneier has taken it upon himself to provide inspirational and effective leadership that has won him worldwide praise, including the prestigious Vienna Prize. It brings me great pleasure to rise today to honor this exceptional religious leader on the occasion of his receiving this most deserved award. I invite my colleagues to join me in expressing our appreciation for his extraordinary efforts.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, with my distinguished friend and colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, and the bipartisan support of a number of our colleagues, I have introduced a resolution deploring recent actions by the Government of Serbia that restrict freedom of the press and freedom of expression, deplores the decision of the Serbian Government to prevent the Soros Foundation from continuing its democracy-building and humanitarian activities in Serbia, and calling upon the Government of Serbia to remove immediately these restrictions against freedom of the press and the operation of the Soros Foundation. Recently, the autocratic President of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, closed down the only independent television station in Belgrade. This follows the government closure just over 1 year ago of the leading independent daily newspaper in the country. Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. As Slobodan Milosevic tries to work his way back into acceptance by the civilized world community--and we should encourage him to do that--he continues his autocratic and antidemocratic moves against the news media in Serbia. But, Mr. Speaker, this is not all. The Milosevic government has also closed down the Soros Foundation, a humanitarian and charitable organization that has done an enormous amount of good for the people of Serbia and, indeed, for the peoples of countless other countries. It is an organization that has established an outstanding reputation for encouraging democratization and the development of open, pluralistic civil societies in the former Communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the republics of the former Soviet Union. The decision of the Serbian Government to withdraw the registration of the internationally renowned Soros Foundation is most likely related to the activities of the foundation in encouraging freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The Soros Yugoslavia Foundation was established in Serbia in 1991. Its board was comprised of prominent scholars and intellectuals from different ethnic backgrounds and regions. Since its establishment, the foundation has dispersed millions of dollars in grants for a variety of programs. The programs that most likely earned for the foundation the hostility of the Milosevic government were those which it sponsored supporting the free media and freedom of expression. Beginning in 1992, the foundation initiated a program to support independent media, including assisting the start-up of some 40 independent media outlets, restarting publications in Albanian, Hungarian, and Slovak languages and initiating a major research project on repression in the media. The Soros Foundation was also involved in establishing the Association of Independent Electronic Media in Serbia and in establishing a media center in Belgrade to promote cooperation between journalistic associations. Grants were provided to permit many journalists in Serbia to attend symposia and workshops abroad and to encourage communication between Serbian and foreign journalists. In 1994 the foundation began support for an independent daily newspaper in Belgrade--Nasa Borba--after Serbian Government authorities absorbed Borba, previously the most prominent independent newspaper published in Belgrade. The problem of government control of the media in Serbia is an issue of major concern to the United States, Mr. Speaker. The latest issue of ``County Reports on Human Rights Practices in 1995,'' which was released by the Department of State just last week, reflects both the conditions in Serbia and the problem this represents for the United States. The report on Serbia notes the following: An important factor in Milosevic's rise to power and almost total domination of the political process is his control and manipulation of the state-run media. Freedom of the press is greatly circumscribed. The Government discourages independent media and resorts to surveillance, harassment, and even suppression to inhibit the media from reporting its repressive and violent acts. Opposition politicians and minority ethnic groups are routinely denied access to the state-run mass media; they are vilified in the government-controlled media, and their positions misrepresented. This year the government-controlled press mounted a campaign against nongovernmental organizations [NGO's] and international humanitarian organizations. In some instances personnel of United Nations and religious organizations were not granted visas to continue their work; in at least one case, the Government revoked the registration of a major NGO. Mr. Speaker, the government of Serbia and President Slobodan Milosevic need to understand how we in the United States feel about these serious issues. They need to understand our firm and unequivocal commitment to freedom of the press and to the vital necessity of freedom of expression. The resolution that I have introduced with Mr. Bereuter is intended to make that clear and unequivocal. It is important that we in the Congress reaffirm our commitment to these vital democratic principles and that the Government of Serbia know of our commitment. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the text of our resolution be placed in the Record, and I invite my colleagues to join as cosponsors of this resolution to demonstrate our support for freedom of the press and to make clear to Serbian authorities our commitment. H. Res. 378 A resolution deploring recent actions by the government of Serbia that restrict freedom of the press and freedom of expression and prevent the Soros Foundation from continuing its democracy-building and humanitarian activities on its territory and calling upon the government of Serbia to remove immediately restrictions against freedom of the press and the operation of the Soros Foundation. Whereas free and independent news media and freedom of expression are fundamental tenets of democracy and are vital to assuring democratic government; Whereas democracy can exist only in an environment that is free of any form of state control or censorship or official coercion of any kind and where freedom of the press is protected by the rule of law; Whereas independent radio and television stations and independent newspapers in Serbia have recently been subjected to restrictions, harassment, intimidation, and closure; Whereas the internationally respected humanitarian and philanthropic organization, the Soros Foundation, has been denied the legal authorization to function in Serbia, and one of the principal activities of the Soros Foundation in Serbia has been to provide assistance for regular publication and distribution of independent daily, weekly, and local newspapers and to provide equipment and technical assistance to independent radio and television outlets; and Whereas parliamentary elections will take place in Serbia in the near future and the existence of free and independent news media is essential to the proper functioning of democratic elections: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) deplores the recent actions of the government of Serbia that restrict freedom of the press and freedom of expression and hamper civic organizations and democratic opposition groups; (2) deplores the actions of the government of Serbia in revoking the legal registration of the Soros Foundation, which therefore prevents the Foundation from further activity in Serbia, and commends the Soros Foundation for its past activities in Serbia and elsewhere in support of freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and the development of democratic institutions; (3) calls upon the government of Serbia to remove immediately those restrictions against the independent press and against independent radio and television stations, to remove immediately restrictions that have hampered free activity by civic organizations and democratic opposition groups, and to restore immediately the right of the Soros Foundation to operate fully in Serbia; (4) declares that United States economic and other assistance for Serbia and United States support for full participation of Serbia in international financial institutions should be conditioned on the full functioning of independent news media, civic organizations, and democratic opposition groups; and (5) requests that the President and the Secretary of State convey to appropriate officials of the governments of Serbia, including President Slobodan Milosevic, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, this expression of the views of the Congress.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further request for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this resolution, the President of the United States is on his way to Egypt to attend a conference called in the wake of the most nightmarish terrorist attacks that we have watched unfold on our television sets in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and in Israel. I want to commend the President, not only for this extremely important symbolic action, but for his persistent support of the democratic State of Israel which has taken such enormous risks for peace at such a very high price in precious human life. Mr. Speaker, this resolution does many things. It condemns the terrorist attacks in Jerusalem, Ashkelon, and Tel Aviv, it extends the condolences of the Congress and the American people to the families of the victims, it expresses support and solidarity with the people of Israel who are undergoing some very difficult times in the face of this mindless and brutal terrorist wave, and it expresses support for the State of Israel as it combats terrorism and attempts to pursue peace with its Arab neighbors. An important aspect of our resolution calls on Yasser Arafat to recognize that this is his last chance to demonstrate that he has the will and the capability to pulverize the terrorist infrastructure of Hamas in territory under his control. We have had for too long a double-faced approach by Arafat saying the right things to the West but praising to high heaven some of the most brutal terrorists, like the engineer who created the most terrible weapons of destruction in recent times in this terrorist wave. Arafat must understand that if he does not destroy the terrorist infrastructure, Israel will do it itself. That would set back the cause that we have been trying so hard to support, the cause of reconciliation, accommodation, and peace. Our resolution, Mr. Speaker, also deals with state sponsors of terrorism, countries such as Iran. Iran must cease its support for Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Later this week our committee will mark up legislation to impose tighter sanctions against Iran and those companies and countries which support Iran economically. I particularly want to call on our European friends and on Japan to recognize their responsibility in fighting terrorism supported by Iran. Their reckless pursuit of profits is singly unseemly as human lives are sacrificed in the wave of terrorism supported by counties such as Iran. I want to deplore the failure of Syria to express its regret with respect to these terrorist acts. Just a few weeks ago in Damascus I met with the Foreign Minister of Syria, and it was clear in our discussion that terrorism has no room in the new Middle East. Yet Syria is staying away from the conference in Egypt and has failed to condemn this outrageous wave of terrorist attacks. I am calling on all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to demonstrate unanimous bipartisan support for this resolution. It is one of the most important steps the Congress will take in expressing our support for peace and stability in the region so critical to the national interests of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 149, as amended. Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], for taking the leadership on this issue, as indeed he has taken the leadership on issues of terrorism for many years with great effectiveness, both in this body and in international bodies. Mr. Speaker, I also wish to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join Freedom House in paying tribute to His Excellency Leonid Kuchma, President of Ukraine. Recently he was the honored recipient of the Freedom Award for his contributions to regional stability and ethnic relations in the Ukraine. The award is given periodically by Freedom House, one of our country's oldest human rights groups. It was established in 1941 to encourage American public support for the struggle against Fascism, and through the years it has been a leading voice for tolerance, human dignity, human rights, and freedom. Previous recipients of this distinguished award include Dwight Eisenhower in 1945, Edward R. Morrow in 1954, Winston Churchill in 1955, 15 Soviet dissidents in 1973, the Dalai Lama in 1991, and Czech President Vaclav Havel in 1991. President Kuchma was honored at a gala dinner at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington attended by some 500 Government and congressional leaders, members of the diplomatic corps, corporate and business executives, leaders of the nongovernment organizations, and leaders of the Ukrainian-American community. President Kuchma has served as President of Ukraine since July 9, 1994. His election marked the first democratic Presidential transition in the Republics of the former Soviet Union. His policy priorities have included initiating a program of market reforms, securing Western financial assistance to his country, normalizing relations with Russia, facilitating the passage by the Ukrainian Parliament of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, promoting interethnic harmony, and strengthening Ukrainian statehood and security. President Kuchma is an engineer by profession. He served as technical director of rocket testing at the Soviet Baikonur Space Center and as general director of the Southern Machine-Building Plant in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. After serving 1\1/2\ years as a deputy in the Ukrainian Parliament, Mr. Kuchma became Prime Minister and served in that post from October 1992 until September 1993. After leaving the post of Prime Minister, Mr. Kuchma became president of the Ukrainian Association of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, which brought together top business leaders and managers from over 14,000 enterprises and workplaces throughout Ukraine. He also led the Interregional Block for Reform, a centrist faction in Parliament, until his election as President of Ukraine. In his opening remarks at the gala dinner honoring President Kuchma, Ambassador Mark Palmer, former United States envoy to Hungary, praised the Freedom House democracy-building programs in Ukraine--a strategically important country of 52 million people which covers an area the size of France which lies in the very heart of Europe. He praised President Kuchma for his determined commitment to democracy and economic reform. United States Ambassador at Large for the Newly Independent States, James Collins, underlined Ukraine's strategic importance in Europe, and cited President Kuchma for his contribution to regional stability and peace. He reiterated American material and moral support for Ukraine's efforts to preserve its national identity and build a truly pluralistic and free society while maintaining good relations with the West, and abiding international agreements on nuclear weapons and troop strengths in Europe. Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor, the President and Freedom House Trustee, praised President Kuchma for moving firmly in the right direction and making his country a constructive partner in the international community. He also praised the courage and determination of the Ukrainian people who tenaciously maintained their language, customs, and history through centuries of foreign and Communist domination. Following Ukraine's achievement of freedom at long last, it has demonstrated remarkable political stability. Dr. Brzezinski called attention to the fact that the transition to President Kuchma from his predecessor was a peaceful change carried out through free and fair elections--the first such transition in among all of the former Republics of the Soviet Union. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union could earn much from Ukraine, Dr. Brzezinski noted. Ukraine has achieved relative ethnic stability, with Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, Poles, and Crimean Tatars living in relative harmony. In his address accepting the award, President Kuchma assured American leaders that Ukraine wants to remain a part of Europe, and he pledged continued cooperation with NATO, the European Community, and other economic and regional organizations. The President said, however, that if Ukraine is to be successful in becoming an integral part of Europe, then the countries of Europe and their leaders must be willing to move toward Ukraine through economic cooperation, trade, and closer political links. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues in the Congress to join me in extending congratulations to President Kuchma personally--as well as to the Government of Ukraine and to the Ukrainian people--for this well- deserved and most appropriate honor. I also invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Freedom House and to its leaders who played key roles in honoring President Kuchma--Vice Chairman of the Board Mark Palmer, Trustee Zbigniew Brzezinksi, and President Adrian Karatnycky.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last week the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation heard testimony regarding funding of mass transit projects across the country. The subcommittee heard from the united bipartisan Bay Area congressional delegation which supports funding the San Francisco Bar Area Rapid Transit [BART] extension to San Francisco International Airport. As you know, this Congress has supported this project over the years, and I am happy to report that BART is now ready to move forward on construction to provide tens of thousands of travelers quick, convenient, and reliable access to the nation's fifth busiest airport. The BART extension to San Francisco International Airport is a longstanding regional priority with overwhelming and broad support from the public. Voters in San Mateo County have twice approved ballot measures directing local funds and taxes to be used for the airport extension and all but one of the cities impacted by the project have passed resolutions in support of this project. We have fought the hard battles at the local level. We have reached a regional consensus. We are ready to move forward on the most important and necessary transportation link in the San Francisco Bay area. Mr. Speaker, local officials and residents in the bay area have made the tough choices in planning and providing local financing for the BART extension to SFO Airport. These decisions were made in an open and public access process at the local level and should be supported here in Washington. I would like to urge my colleagues to continue their support of the BART extension to the San Francisco International Airport. A recent editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle summed up this issue brilliantly. I respectfully request that this editorial be placed in the Record for the benefit of my colleagues. Don't Stop This Train Bart's plans to reach San Francisco International Airport by the year 2000 have run into two potentially significant adversaries in the nation's capital. One is the airline industry, which has been concerned that the airport might try to raise landing fees or slap on a ticket surcharge to cover its $200 million share. Although the airline industry carries clout on Capitol Hill, we are confident that Congress will not be swayed by a selfish pitch against a project of such importance. Besides, the industry may eventually realize that this huge step in convenience to its passengers is well worth a relatively modest investment. A more unsettling development is the effort of a handful of peninsula naysayers to resurrect the battle they clearly lost at the local level. Their testimony before the House Appropriations Transportation subcommittee last week may have given some legislators the impression that the Bay Area is still debating how to best provide mass-transit service to the airport. And Congress may be reluctant to commit $700 million when the issue remains unsettled. Well, the matter is settled. After years of torturous deliberation, there now is an overwhelming consensus on a plan that would put a BART station just outside the International Terminal. It would get at least half the passengers within a five-minute walk to a ticket counter and it would have a light-rail connection to other terminals. It is a good compromise. It's time to get on with it. Opponents of the airport BART station are living in a dream world if they think that derailing the project will suddenly lead Congress to shift the money over to Cal-Train. The proposed $87 million fiscal 1997 federal contribution to the BART project would almost surely be scooped up by another legislator for another region. We trust that the subcommittee members, having seen the strong support of six Bay Area members of Congress, will realize that the fighting is finished. This train is on the move.