Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, Jack Valenti, the president and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, is one of the most distinguished and insightful observers of the Washington scene. As my colleagues know, Jack arrived in Washington aboard Air Force One with President Lyndon Johnson on November 22, 1963. In the three decades since Jack arrived at the White House, he has been a thoughtful and careful eyewitness to the administrations of seven Presidents and every Congress from the 88th to the 104th. Jack shared his wisdom and thoughts about our National Government based on his first-hand participation and his perceptive observations in an outstanding address to the members of the Federal Communications Bar a few weeks ago. The lessons he shared with these attorneys are lessons that would be beneficial to all of us in the Congress as well. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the address of Jack Valenti be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to give it thoughtful attention. Washington, DC: ``It's a Make You Town or a Bring You Down and Break You Town.'' (By Jack Valenti) As one who has spent his entire adult career in two of life's classic fascinations, politics and movies, I have known in both those worlds the great, the near great and those who thought they were great. The latter category outnumbers the first two by a long ton. I have become convinced that movie people and politicians spring from the same DNA. They are both: Unpredictable. Sometimes glamorous. Usually in crisis, imagined or otherwise. Addicted to power. Anxious to please. Always on stage. Hooked on applause. Enticed by publicity. Always reading from scripts prepared by someone else. Constantly taking the public pulse. Never really certain, except publicly. Indeed, it's difficult to say which deserves more the description of entertainment capital of the world, Hollywood or Washington, D.C. The lyrics of the song ``This Town,'' as sung by Frank Sinatra explain most accurately what Washington is all about. Sang Old Blue Eyes: ``It's a make you town or a bring you down and break you town.'' Which is why I would like to talk tonight about what I have learned since I arrived in the Federal City aboard Air Force One on November 22, 1963. In the intervening 32 years I have in turn been an intimate participant at the highest station of this government, serving my President with loyalty and fidelity, as well as a clinical observer through the administrations of seven Presidents, from the 88th Congress through the 104th Congress. Perhaps some of these musings will be some casual interest of a few of you. They are quite interesting to me. So, let me count the lessons I have learned. Or more accurately, lessons learned as defined by my experience, not necessarily by yours. I learned that in the White House there is one enduring standard by which every assistant to the President, every presidential adviser, every presidential consultant must inevitably be measured. Not whether you went to Harvard or Yale, or whether you scored 1600 on your SATs, or whether you are endlessly charming and charismatically enable or whether you made millions in what we sardonically call ``the private sector.'' These are all attractive credentials which one may wear modestly or otherwise. But when the decision crunch is on in the Oval Office they are all merely tracings on dry leaves in the wind. What does count, the ultimate and only gauge, is whether you have ``good judgment.'' I learned that no presidential decision is ever made where the President had all the information he needed to make the decision. There is never enough facts. Very quickly, the decision corridor grows dark, the mapping indistinct, the exit inaccessible. What is not useful are precedents or learned disquisitions by Op-Ed page pundits, some of whom would be better suited to raising pigeons. Finally, the decision is made on judgment alone. Sometimes the judgment is good. Sometimes it is not. You don't learn ``good judgment'' in the Ivy League or by reading the New York Times, the Washington Post or even the Weekly Standard. It is well to remember, as Oscar Wilde once said, that from time to time nothing that is worth knowing can be taught. Judgment is something that springs from some little elf who inhabits an area between your belly and your brain, and who from time to time, tugs at your nerve edges, and says, ``no, not that way, the other way.'' This mysterious inhabitant is called instinct, intuition, judgment. It is the one ingredient on which the rest of human condition depends for guidance. I learned that the one political component above all else which can insure electoral victory or crushing defeat is timing. A whack to your political solar plexus six to eight months before an election is survivable. Two weeks before the election, and you're dead. Ask Jimmy Carter. In politics, twenty-hours is a millennium. I learned that economic forecasts beyond about two weeks have the same odds of accuracy as guessing the winning numbers in the D.C. lottery. If you truly believe in long- term predictions of economic activity, estimates based on so- called ``real numbers,'' which is the mantra of the current budget debate, then you are enrolled in a defunct mythology. Economic forecasts are usually unwarranted assumptions leaping to a preconceived conclusion. Just remember, whenever an economist can't remember his phone number, he will give you an estimate. I learned that when there is no unamiable issue like war, or prospect of war or recession or economic disaster, most people vote for a President viscerally not intellectually. Most people choose a President romantically, a choice made in unfathomable ways which is now romance is formed. Like John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. I learned never to humiliate an antagonist and never desert a friend. In a political struggle, never got personal else the dagger digs too deep. Your enemy today may need to be your ally tomorrow. I learned that nothing lasts. What is up will inevitably go down and sooner or later in reverse. It took forty years, but the House changed masters. Victory is often the prelude to defeat. President Bush can rise to testify about that. Failure is often the precursor of triumph. Ask Bill Clinton. Richard Nixon tasted both ends of those beguiling equations. The breeding ground of politics is irrigated and nourished by change. As one who has fallen from political power, I can instruct George Stephanopoulos in how quickly you lose your charm and your enticements when you no longer sit at the right hand of the Sun King. I learned that a political poll is Janus in disguise. The life of a poll is about 10 nano-seconds. It is already in decay when it is published. A political poll, like the picture of Dorian Gray, is the face of entropy. The veteran professionals know that. The old pols use polls to raise money. When polls are up, go for the fat wallets. But the politician who persistently lifts his wet finger to test the political polls before he acts, usually leaves office with a wet finger. I learned that if a President, a Congressman, a Senator does not have convictions, he or she will be right only by accident. I must confess I have a grudging admiration for those freshmen House Republicans who won't budge from their fixed convictions. They truly believe, heavily, explicitly. Which is why Speaker Gingrich is finding out what Mirabeau finally knew: When you undertake to run a revolution, the difficulty is not to make it go. It is to hold it in check. But I have also learned that the frustrating constant of modern day American politics is perennial gridlock, caused by forces at either extreme. It has been said that a man does not show his greatness by being at the end of one political boundary or the other, but rather by touching both at once. In our free Republic, political parties argue and shout, but finally they touch both ends of the extremes and draw them together. That is called ``compromise.'' It is not an ignoble word. Compromise is the canopy under which men and women finally behave wisely, once they have exhausted all other alternatives. Without compromise, parliamentary bodies will ``split into a bundle of unfriendly and distrustful fragments.'' I have learned that if we live in the incestuous world of Washington long enough we become, in the main, skeptics, cynics, who view with lacerating contempt the boobs and the rabble, the unlearned and unlettered, who live out there, somewhere east of Beverly Hills and west of the Beltway. But those boobs are the very folks who over two centuries of cruel disjointings have sustained this free and loving land. I have a special feeling for the rabble. My grandparents were part of that rabble. They came to Texas from Sicily, poor immigrant peasants, strangers in a strange and wondrous land. They became unabashed patriots, which to them meant fierce loyalty and unbreakable fidelity to their new country. These days we are uneasy with the designation ``patriot.'' We regard it in much the same queasy manner as one does holding a wolf by the ears. Too bad. When the night is full of knives, when lightning is seen and drums are heard, the patriots are always there, ready to fight, and ready to die if need be, to defend their country and to protect those who stayed home, for sound and convenient reasons, of course. But the greatest lesson I have learned, the most important of my education, is really the essential imperative of this century. It is called leadership. We brandish the word. We admire its light. But we seldom define it. Outside Caen in the Normandy countryside of France is a little cemetery. Atop one of the graves is a cross on which is etched these words: ``Leadership is wisdom and courage and a great carelessness of self.'' Which means, of course, that leaders must from time to time put to hazard their own political future in order to do what is right in the long term interests of those they have by solemn oath sworn to serve. Easy to say. Tough to do. I remember when I first bore personal witness to its doing. It was in December, 1963. Lyndon Johnson had been President but a few short weeks. At that time I was actually living on the third floor of the White House until my family arrived. The President said to me on a Sunday morning, ``call Dick Russell and ask him if he would come by for coffee with you and me.'' Senator Richard Brevard Russell of Georgia was the single most influential and honored figure in the Senate. His prestige towered over all others in those years before the dialogue turned sour and mean. When in 1952, the Senate Democratic leader's post fell open, the other Senators turned immediately to Russell, imploring him to take the job. ``No,'' said Russell, ``let's make Lyndon Johnson our leader, he'll do just fine.'' So at the age of 44, just four years in his first Senate term, LBJ became the youngest ever Democratic leader and in a short time the greatest parliamentary commander in Senate history. When Russell arrived, the President greeted him warmly with a strong embrace, the six-foot four LBJ and the smallish, compact Russell, with his gleaming bald head and penetrating eyes. The President steered him to the couch overlooking the Rose Garden, in the West Hall on the second floor of the Mansion. I sat next to Russell. The President was in his wing chair, his knees almost touching Russell's, so close did they sit. The President drew even closer, and said in an even voice, ``Dick, I love you and I owe you. If it had not been for you I would not have been Leader, or Vice President or now President. But I wanted to tell you face to face, please don't get in my way on this Civil Rights Bill, which has been locked up in the Senate too damn long. I intend to pass this bill, Dick. I will not cavil. I will not hesitate. And if you get in my way, I'll run you down.'' Russell sat mutely for a moment, impassive, his face a mask. Then he spoke, in the rolling accents of his Georgia countryside. ``Well, Mr. President, you may just do that. But I pledge you that if you do, it will not only cost you the election, it will cost you the South forever.'' President Johnson in all the later years in which I knew him so intimately never made me prouder than he did that Sunday morning so long, long ago. He touched Russell lightly on the shoulder, an affectionate gesture of one loving friend to another. He spoke softly, almost tenderly: ``Dick, my old friend, if that's the price I have to pay, then I will gladly pay it.'' Of all the lessons I have learned in my political life, that real life instruction in leadership on a Sunday morning in the White House was the most elemental, and the most valuable. It illuminated in a blinding blaze the highest point to which the political spirit can soar. I have never forgotten it. I never will.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, our deeply respected and beloved chaplain a few moments ago started out his prayer with these words: ``There are times when it seems our world is filled with the demons of violence and chaos.'' This is one of those times. As the only survivor of the Holocaust ever elected to the Congress of the United States, I know I speak for all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, in expressing our outrage at the most recent terrorist attack against children, women and old people, all civilians, in the streets of Israel. The distinguished Republican chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], and I are introducing a resolution denouncing this most recent outrage, calling on Yasser Arafat to pulverize the infrastructure of the terrorists and calling on the President of the United States to make our antiterrorist assets available to achieve that goal. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in this resolution.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on July 14, 1994, the Sprint Corp. abruptly closed down La Conexion Familiar, its San Francisco telemarketing subsidiary, and fired all 235 La Conexion Familiar workers. These employees were let go just 1 week before they were scheduled to vote in an organizing election under the supervision of the National Labor Relations Board. A majority of the employees at La Conexion Familiar had signed a petition indicating their desire to unionize. The employees said that they were seeking to improve working conditions which included restrictions on drinking water and bathroom breaks. The National Labor Relations Board charged Sprint with over 50 Federal labor violations and with illegally closing La Conexion Familiar. An administrative law judge upheld these 50 labor violations, but offered no assistance or remedy to the fired employees. The NLRB general counsel has appealed to the full Board charging that the closing was an illegal effort to thwart a union organizing drive. The U.S. Department of Labor held a public forum in San Francisco this week, entitled ``Public Forum of the Effects of a Sudden Plant Closure and the Impact on the Principle of Freedom of Association and the Right of Workers to Organize.'' This forum was the first of its kind under the terms of the NAFTA agreement. I submitted testimony to this forum and would like to share my testimony with my colleagues. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request that my testimony be entered into the Record. Effects of Sudden Plant Closure and the Impact on the Principle of Freedom of Association and the Right of Workers to Organize (By Tom Lantos) I would first like to commend you for holding this hearing which is the first of its kind under the terms of the NAFTA agreement on a case involving violations of worker rights in the United States. As you know, I was strongly opposed to NAFTA, but it is now the law of the land and we must live by its provisions. I will be the first to make sure that the spirit and intent of the principles contained in NAFTA's side agreement on labor cooperation are given maximum attention in the enforcement of NAFTA's provisions. The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation states plainly that every effort will be made to guarantee to all workers the right of freedom of association and the right to union representation. The Sprint workers who are the subject of today's hearing were clearly denied these rights. Sprint's shutdown of La Conexion Familiar demonstrated that reality falls well short of the goals of the NAFTA agreement on labor cooperation. This is a case of a company which willfully violated our labor law and which was cited with more than 50 violations. It is also a case of human pain and suffering. As you know, on July 14, 1994, 235 individuals were thrown out of work by Sprint. Many of these workers live in my Congressional district. Today we heard from several of these workers who have told us in their own words the turmoil they have had to endure. I have heard their pain from the beginning of this tragic situation and I have observed first hand the wrenching consequences of Sprint's behavior of these worker's lives. In a split second these workers were unemployed. Their families were in disarray. And the promise of the American dream was destroyed. ``How could this happen'', they asked, ``After all, this is America, where laws are supposed to mean what they say and are supposed to be enforced to the letter.'' When Sprint abruptly shut its ``La Conexion Familiar'' facility one week before an organizing election, we had a classic case of US labor law not adequately protecting American workers. Two hundred and thirty-five workers lost their jobs, victims of an illegal campaign against workers' rights. More than a year and a half after losing their jobs, the workers at La Conexion Familiar are still struggling and awaiting justice. Out of the 177 workers who were scheduled to vote in the union election, fewer than half are working-- the rest are still out of work. The National Labor Relations Board moved as quickly as current law permitted. But in spite of their efforts it took over four months until the case was heard and well over a year until a decision was issued. And the process is far from over. As of today, this case is 593 days old and it will take many more months before the Board issues a final decision, even as they expedite the case. It will take years before all parties exhaust available appeals. In the meantime, the workers are the ones paying the price for the inability of our system to provide prompt and effective remedies for this obvious and egregious violation of the law. The Sprint case is not atypical. The latest data available from the NLRB show that by the end of 1994, the medium number of days it took for an unfair labor practice case to reach a decision by an administrative law judge was 360 days and the median number of days to a reach a Board decision was 601 days. What this means is that half of all these cases took even longer. The average age of cases pending before the Board (as of September 30, 1994) was 758 days. Add to that years of appeals through the courts and we have to recognize that our current system of labor law is in fact an easy and inexpensive tool for companies to use to break the law rather than abide by it. It is simply unjust for workers who have lost their jobs as a result of unfair labor practices by their employers to have to wait so long for a remedy. Our labor laws and their enforcement mechanisms must be strengthened. Under these circumstances, I admire the courage of the workers at La Conexion Familiar. They stepped up to the plate and took a swing at their rights. What they did not know was that the game was rigged against them and Sprint was throwing a spit ball. What would you do if you were a worker in a plant or a facility such as La Conexion Familiar and you were told by your supervisor or your manager: ``Look, don't even try to organize, because we'll shut the plant down and it will take you four to five years to prove that the company did anything wrong. In the meantime, you will be out of work.'' Under these circumstances would anyone try to organize? There is no question that the average worker would say, ``No.'' This is what is so admirable about the Sprint workers at La Conexion Familiar. In spite of all the threats, the coercion and the spying, they still tried. They demonstrated that the importance of organizing a union is not from a bygone era, but that organizing a union is more relevant than ever. It is our system of labor law and its enforcement which must be brought into the 21st century. This is why I am testifying today in support of Sprint workers and all workers who want to organize. I will continue to do everything I can to seek a remedy in this case and will continue to push for labor law reform which provides prompt and effective penalties against labor law violators. Workers must feel secure in their belief that they can exercise their right to organize without fear of retaliation by their employer and without running the risk of losing their job. One reason I opposed the NAFTA agreement was that it perpetuated the ineffectiveness of US law in protecting workers rights. In the case of the right to organize, the NAFTA agreement provides only a mechanism for exposing violations of these rights and this Forum is part of that mechanism. It is important for workers to demonstrate the widespread abuse of workers rights. But it is clearly not enough. The objectives of the NAFTA side agreement on labor cooperation are admirable. But the law itself should contain penalties against the companies who benefit from expanded trade opportunities but at the same time violate their workers' rights, whether in Mexico, Canada or the United States. I will fight hard to ensure that the NAFTA agreement is amended to include real penalties and appropriate enforcement provisions. I support calls for an international code of conduct for all companies operating on a global scale. This code will ensure that workers' rights, which we in the United States are at least committed to on paper and which are contained in the NAFTA side agreement on labor cooperation, will become a part and parcel of acceptable behavior in international commerce. The promise of international investment and trade must go hand in hand with the promise of improved working conditions and living standards for workers both in the United States and abroad. By recognizing and protecting the rights of workers to form unions and engage in collective bargaining, we are not giving workers entitlements or handouts. We are giving them the tools to stand up for themselves and claim their fair share of economic progress that they had a hand in producing. Thank you.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today's Washington Post has an excellent column by the Post's distinguished diplomatic correspondent, Jim Hoagland. He discusses the recent incidents involving a series of ``rogue regimes,'' the international outlaw countries which are a threat to global peace and stability. He rightfully points out that we must keep the focus on the leaders of these regimes and their outrageous policies and not let minor differences over how to deal with these dictators distort the fundamental agreement that exists among most Americans. Mr. Speaker, these rogue regimes represent the most serious threat to U.S. interests and policies in the world, and it is essential that we take strong action to deal with these countries. These states support and sponsor terrorism; they create instability in their regions through destabilizing policies toward their neighbors; they seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and sell such weapons to other rogue regimes; they violate the human rights of their own citizens. The list of such countries is not long, but it includes Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, and Cuba. As my colleagues know, with my distinguished colleague from New York, Mr. King, I have introduced legislation that would put this House on record by condemning the visit of Louis Farrakhan to several of these rogue regimes, including Libya, Iran, and Iraq. It also calls on the President to direct executive agencies to determine if the Farrakhan visit and the actions that follow that visit--such as the reported gift from Libya's Qadhafi of $1 billion for Farrakhan's use in the United States--violate United States laws and, if that is the case, to prosecute vigorously such violations. Mr. Hoagland made this observation regarding Farrakhan's grand tour of terrorist states: ``Keep the focus on the Friends of Farrakhan. Make it clear that any financial transactions between the rogues and any Americans, including Farrakhan, will be investigated and if warranted prosecuted. President Clinton should not remain silent on the minister's travels.'' I could not agree more with Mr. Hoagland. And--I would also add--the Congress should not remain silent on Farrakhan's travels. I invite my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring our resolution to condemn the Farrakhan tour of the terrorist states. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Jim Hoagland's column be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to read his excellent analysis. [From the Washington Post, Feb. 29, 1996] Twilight of the Thugs (By Jim Hoagland) Fidel Castro has demonstrated anew his zest for creating mischief for a U.S. president seeking reelection. But Cuba's cold-blooded shooting down of two unarmed U.S. civilian aircraft on Saturday also shows the insecurity and desperation that now envelops the Western Hemisphere's last dictator and his kind. The two Cessnas piloted by Cuban exiles, out to help fleeing rafters and perhaps drop propaganda leaflets on their homeland were mosquitoes buzzing around El Jefe's beard. Castro was not strong enough to laugh them off. Instead he turned them into martyrs. His savage response is the act of a wounded, cornered animal fighting off the end. To be sure, there is a mountain of politics and diplomacy to be worked through in the days to come, with debates flowing here over whether President Clinton's classically incremental response to the shoot-down was overly mild. But the focus should stay on Castro and his regime, revolutionary relics floating like debris in the wake of the Soviet collapse of 1991. Just as time ran out on the Soviet Union five years ago, it is now running out for the rogue regimes and rulers who have clung to power in the Third World after the demise of their superpower protector. The same lurching, cornered quality of the Cuban shoot-down is apparent in the grisly spat between Saddam Hussein and the two defectors-in-law he accepted back to Iraq and then had executed, and in Moammar Gadhafi's desperate efforts to construct the most grandiose poison gas factor in history in the empty Libyan desert. Instead of fiddling as their regimes crumble, these modern Neros pass their time by expanding their repertoire of murder and mass destruction. North Korea plays out its version of the communist endgame by blackmailing the United States and its allies for financial help to stave off a total, sudden collapse. Vietnam plays the game by opening up to foreign investment and trade, an approach Syria toys with, trying to winkle concessions out of Warren Christopher and Shimon Peres for doing so. China and Iran, which also practice Soviet-style tyranny at home and criminality abroad, do not--alas--appear to be as close to revolutionary burnout. But cheer up. I could be wrong, particularly about China. Why get our hopes up now? Because the extinguishing of the Soviet sun has left this shrinking universe of thug-rulers without a center, without a system of political gravity. They have lost their international reason to exist. They have coasted for five years on the strength of brute force and in some cases on the political and financial glory of nationalized oil or other resources coveted by the West. But the disgrace and isolation Castro, Gadhafi, Saddam, Syria's Hafez Assad, North Korea's Kims and the others have brought on their nations can no longer be justified in the name of international revolutionary glory or hidden from their citizens. The growing isolation of the world's outlaws is underscored by their willingness to serve as platforms for the pitch of an itinerant American snake oil salesman--that is, for the race-baiting of Louis Farrakhan, recently hosted by Gadhafi, Saddam, and ayatollahs and the criminals who run Nigeria, and others. Farrakhan is no doubt right when he says he has a constitutional right to travel to these countries and meet with whomever he likes. But Americans who were willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt based on his Million Man March, and promises of reconciliation and tolerance he voiced there, would be fools to continue that openness after his Grand Tour of Murder Inc. International. Congress should not give Farrakhan a new platform by bringing him to town to hearings that, as a master showman, he can manipulate. Farrakhan has said everything Americans need to know by kissing the bloodstained rings of the killers with whom he has cavorted on this trip. But this does not mean that America should passively wait for the world's second-tier thugs and their would-be acolytes to disappear into the sunset created by the collapse of communism. Keep the focus on the Friends of Farrakhan. Make it clear that any financial transactions between the rogues and any Americans, including Farrakhan, will be investigated and if warranted prosecuted. President Clinton should not remain silent on the minister's travels. On Cuba, keep the focus on Castro. Clinton's Republican rivals lack a sense of history and proportionality in concentrating their fire not on Castro but on the president's low-key, still evolving response to the shoot-down. We fall into Castro trap if we let these murders become an American political football. You can almost hear Castro laughing and saying, ``There they go again.''

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this morning I am introducing two resolutions, and I know these resolutions will receive broad bipartisan support. The Communist dictator of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, has closed down the only independent television station in Belgrade. I think it is an outrage that, as Milosevic is trying to work his way back into acceptance by the civilized world community--and he should do so--he also simultaneously 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 people of countless other countries. I am calling on President Clinton in the most emphatic terms to insist that the independent television station in Belgrade be reopened and the Soros Foundation be allowed to continue its work. My second resolution, Mr. Speaker, denounces Louis Farrakhan's visit to Libya, Iran, and Iraq. It is critical that the President of the United States direct executive agencies to establish whether U.S. laws were broken. Farrakhan can say whatever he wants, but he must obey the law.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the distinguished assemblyman of the 21st assembly district of California, Mr. Byron Sher. He represents a number of communities in San Mateo County and my Congressional District does overlap some of the areas in his State assembly district. We have worked together on many issues for the people of San Mateo County. This coming weekend, the San Mateo County Democratic Party will salute Byron Sher at a special appreciation dinner held to recognize the service he has rendered to the people of California. After a successful career in the California Assembly, Byron Sher will retire at the end of this legislative session. He will have completed his eighth term in the assembly and is not permitted to run again because of term limitations. Byron has based his long and productive political career upon the strong foundations of a distinguished academic career. After an ambitious undergraduate career, he earned his Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School in 1952. Byron went on to teaching positions at some of the leading law schools around the country, including Southern Methodist, University of Southern California and Harvard Law School. Currently, he is an emeritus professor of law at Stanford University in Palo Alto, CA. Byron has been active in local and regional government since he came to Palo Alto in 1957. In this time, he has repeatedly shown his commitment to the community. He was a member of the Palo Alto City Council for 9 years and served two terms as mayor. For many years, Byron has given time to local, State, and national environmental boards. As a member of the California State Legislature, Byron has many notable achievements. He is the author of landmark laws to protect California's environment, including the California Clean Air Act, the Integrated Waste Management Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the nation's first law to prevent toxic contamination from leaking underground storage tanks. He is consistently rated among the top legislators by the most respected environmental, consumer, law enforcement, education and housing groups. I applaud his conscientious hard work on the part of our community and California. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Byron Sher as he completes a record of distinguished service in the California State Assembly. The people of San Mateo County and the people of California have been well served by his leadership and advocacy in the State assembly.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago in 1976, the month of February was officially set aside by Congress to pay tribute to, honor, and respect African-Americans who have made key contributions to the diversity and greatness of the United States. The purpose of Black History Month this year is to reflect upon some of the African-American women who have made extraordinary achievements in civil rights, politics, science, entertainment, literature, and athletics. African-American women have proven themselves invaluable as leaders in the evolution of our great Nation. Their vigorous and passionate participation in the age-old struggle for freedom has resulted in a rich history of heroines. As the list of these women and their accomplishments is long, I regretfully must choose only a few examples. In July 1849, the ex-slave abolitionist, Harriet Tubman, assisted in the underground railroad to free over 300 slaves. Her courage and selflessness demonstrated her character of integrity and honor while in the pursuit of freedom and right. She is known as the Moses of her people. Nearly a century later, this same courage and fight for equality was demonstrated by Rosa Parks in Montgomery, AL, when she refused to give up her bus seat to a white person when she was ordered to move by the bus driver. As a result of her unyielding character and strong belief in what is right, a bus boycott occurred, after which segregation on buses was declared as a violation of guaranteed American rights. Patricia Robert Harris, a lawyer and diplomat, became the first African-American woman Ambassador to be appointed to an overseas post. Three years later, in 1968, Shirley Chisholm was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Recently in 1992, Carol E. Moseley Brown was elected to the U.S. Senate. I applaud my past and current colleagues for their fine and distinguished leadership. In 1873, Susan McKinney Steward overcame great obstacles to become the first African-American woman to be formally certified as a doctor. Her innovative and stalwart personality enabled her to create the Women's Loyal Union of New York and Brooklyn and to cofound a women's hospital in Brooklyn. The medical field, thanks to her pioneering example, has opened its doors to women. Today, women are entering the medical profession in increasing numbers, often representing a majority of the student body at our leading medical schools. Additional accomplishments by African-American women in America are found in the space program. Mac C. Jemison was the first African- American woman in space in 1992. Another grand achievement is the work of Katherine Johnson, an aerospace technologist with NASA. She is a pioneer in new navigation procedures to track space missions. African-American women have excelled in the entertainment world, covering the spectrum of music and dance to books and TV journalism. Due to her outstanding performance in ``Gone With the Wind,'' actress Hattie McDaniel was the first African-American woman to win an Academy Award. Maya Angelou, the actress, dancer, writer, and poet, who is well known for her book ``I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,'' stands apart as a distinguished and invaluable asset to a greater understanding in this country. A few years back Toni Morrison was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in literature. News reporter Carole Simpson has made significant advancements in the media profession, moving from a Chicago TV reporter in 1970 to the anchor of ABC's ``World News Saturday.'' Athletically, African-American women have demonstrated outstanding strength, skill, and discipline in many sports. In 1951, Althea Gibson was the first African-American woman to play at Wimbledon, and later went on to win the singles and doubles title--with her partner, Darlene Hard--in 1957. In the Olympics, Jackie Joyner-Kersee is acclaimed internationally as the world record holder in the heptathlon. Each of these extraordinary African-American women has set her sights high and tackled difficult challenges to reach her goals. In African- American communities and in all of America, these women provide valuable examples of success. Still, there are countless African- American women who have dedicated their lives to something they wholeheartedly believe in, but many never receive public recognition. I am delighted to invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing the outstanding African-American women of yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the distinguished assemblywoman of the 19th assembly district of California, Ms. Jackie Speier. Many of the same communities in San Mateo County that are included in her State assembly district are also within the boundaries of the 12th Congressional District, which I have the privilege and honor to represent. This coming weekend, the San Mateo County Democratic Party will salute Jackie Speier at a special appreciation dinner held to recognize the service she has rendered to the people of California. After a successful career in the California assembly, Jackie Speier will retire at the end of this legislative session. She will have completed her fifth term in the assembly and is not permitted to run again because of term limitations. Jackie Speier was born in San Francisco--the daughter of a German immigrant and an American mother. She attended local schools in south San Francisco and graduated from Mercy High School in Burlington. She received a B.A. from the University of California at Davis and received a law degree from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law in 1976. Following the completion of her education, Jackie served on the staff of our late colleague and my predecessor, Congressman Leo J. Ryan. In November 1978, Jackie accompanied Congressman Ryan to Jonestown, Guyana, to investigate the cult community led by the Rev. Jim Jones. As my colleagues know, Congressman Ryan was killed during that visit to Jonestown, and Jackie Speier was seriously injured at the same time. That was followed by the tragic suicide-murder of over 900 cult members. After returning to California, Ms. Speier was elected to the San Mateo County board of supervisors in November 1980, where she effectively served the people of San Mateo County for 5 years. During that time she served 1 year as chair of the board. In November 1986, she was elected a member of the California State Assembly. During the decade that she represented the 19th assembly district, Jackie led the assembly's Committee on Consumer Protection, Governmental Efficiency and Economic Development. She was a constructive and articulate spokesperson and advocate for consumer interests and government efficiency for the people of San Mateo County. Jackie is the mother of two delightful children--Jackson Kent Sierra and Stephanie Katelin Elizabeth Sierra. Her husband, Dr. Steven Sierra, was killed in a tragic automobile accident in early 1994, a few months before the birth of their last child. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Jackie Speier as she completes 10 years of distinguished service in the California State Assembly. The people of San Mateo County and the people of California have been well served by her leadership and advocacy in the State assembly.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of Education has recognized Lowell High School in San Francisco, CA, as a Blue Ribbon School. As a Blue Ribbon School, Lowell High School serves as a shining example of high-quality education for the rest of the country. The school is 1 of only 266 throughout our entire Nation and only 39 in California to be selected for this high honor. I invite my colleagues to join me in extending our most sincere admiration and congratulations for the wonderful educational environment that Lowell High School provides for our young Americans. I am indeed proud to have this outstanding institution in my congressional district. Lowell High School has achieved this high honor through its persistent and highly effective pursuit of local, State and national education goals. These goals reflect the areas in which our educational institutions across the country are most in need of improvement. Lowell High School's remarkable success in overcoming some of the most difficult problems our schools face today makes it a perfect example for schools around the country to follow. Lowell High School has been highly successful in fulfilling the necessary conditions of effective schooling. Through the dynamic and productive leadership of Principal Paul Cheng, Lowell High School has developed a nurturing teaching environment, a rigorous and engaging curriculum, a safe environment for students and teachers, and a healthy involvement of parents and the community in strengthening educational resources. Students from Lowell convincingly demonstrate the many benefits of a good schooling environment through impressive student performances on measures of achievement, attendance rates, and the varied and ambitious pursuits of graduates of the school. Lowell High School is more than deserving of the recognition it has and will continue to receive as a Blue Ribbon School. I hope that other schools across the country will be able to learn by the example of Lowell how to confront some of the seemingly intractable problems facing our educational system. I also hope that, in recognizing Lowell High School, my colleagues recognize the necessity of making educational excellence one of our highest priorities in the U.S. Congress.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of Education has recognized William H. Crocker Middle School in Hillsborough, CA, as a blue ribbon school. As a blue ribbon school, William H. Crocker Middle School serves as a shining example of high-quality education for rest of the country. The school is one of only 266 throughout our entire Nation and only 39 in California to be selected for this high honor. I invite my colleagues to join me in extending our most sincere admiration and congratulations for the wonderful educational environment that Crocker Middle School provides for our young Americans. I am indeed proud to have this outstanding institution in my congressional district. Willima H. Crocker Middle School has achieved this high honor through its persistent and highly effective pursuit of local, State and national education goals. These goals reflect the areas in which our educational institutions across the country are most in need of improvement. Crocker Middle School's remarkable success in overcoming some of the most difficult problems our schools face today makes it a perfect example for schools around the country to follow. Crocker Middle School has been highly successful in fulfilling the necessary conditions of effective schooling. Through the dynamic and productive leadership of Principal Daniel G. Kreuzer, Crocker Middle School has developed a nurturing teaching environment, a rigorous and engaging curriculum, a safe environment for students and teachers, and a healthy involvement of parents and the community in strengthening educational resources. Students from Crocker convincingly demonstrate the many benefits of a good schooling environment through impressive student performances on measures of achievement, attendance rates, and the varied and ambitious pursuits of graduates of the school. Crocker Middle School is more than deserving of the recognition it has and will continue to receive as a blue ribbon school. I hope that other schools across the country will be able to learn by the example of Crocker how to confront some of the seemingly intractable problems facing our educational system. I also hope that, in recognizing William H. Crocker Middle School, my colleagues recognize the necessity of making educational excellence one of our highest priorities in the U.S. Congress.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of Education has recognized Taylor Middle School in Millbrae, CA, as a ``Blue Ribbon School.'' As a Blue Ribbon School, Taylor Middle School serves as a shining example of high-quality education for the rest of the country. The school is one of only 266 throughout our entire Nation and one of only 39 in California to be selected for this high honor. I invite my colleagues to join me in extending our most sincere admiration and congratulations for the wonderful educational environment that Taylor Middle School provides for our young Americans. I am indeed proud to have this outstanding institution in my congressional district. Taylor Middle School has achieved this high honor through its persistent and highly effective pursuit of local, State and national education goals. These goals reflect the areas in which our educational institutions across the country are most in need of improvement. Taylor Middle School's remarkable success in overcoming some of the most difficult problems our schools face today makes it a perfect example for schools around the country to follows. Taylor Middle School has been highly successful in fulfilling the necessary conditions of effective schooling. Through the dynamic and productive leadership of Principal Sharon Fritz, Taylor Middle School has developed a nurturing teaching environment, a rigorous and engaging curriculum, a safe environment for students and teachers, and a healthy involvement of parents and the community in strengthening educational resources. Students from Taylor convincingly demonstrate the many benefits of a good schooling environment through impressive student performances on measures of achievement, attendance rates, and the varied and ambitious pursuits of graduates of the school. Taylor Middle School is more than deserving of the recognition it has and will continue to receive as a Blue Ribbon School. I hope that other schools across the country will be able to learn by the example of Taylor how to confront some of the seemingly intractable problems facing our educational system. I also hope that, in recognizing Taylor Middle School, my colleagues recognize the necessity of making educational excellence one of our highest priorities in the United States Congress.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce into the Congressional Record the following speech, by my friend and colleague Senator Alan Simpson, given at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning. Senator Simpson delivered this eloquent address with his legendary wit and humor. I encourage all of my colleagues to read this most significant speech by Senator Alan Simpson. National Prayer Breakfast february 1, 1996 Mr. President, First Lady Hillary, Mr. Vice President and President of our Senate and Tipper Gore, distinguished guests. Greetings, my fellow seekers, discoverers, and wanderers (not necessarily in that order!) Always a grand morning. One of the great honors of my life was to give the principal address at this National Prayer Breakfast in 1989. I was filled with trepidation that a seeker like me would be asked. The night before, the Reverend Billy Graham, one of the most loving, inspirational, caring men in this world, called and said, ``Alan, we are praying for you.'' I said, ``You're praying for me! I'm doing plenty of that for myself!'' So typical of Billy Graham. Long ago in public life I learned where to turn when I didn't know where to turn. One source. The Senate prayer breakfast group gathers every Wednesday morning for a convivial half hour between 8 and 9:00. Our leaders are Bob Bennett, the Republican from Utah and Dan Akaka a Democrat from Hawaii. Rare gentlemen both. The presentor of the day--after an opening prayer--shares much of himself or herself with us for fifteen or twenty minutes and then a time of discussion and fellowship. Promptly at the hour of nine we close with a prayer as we stand with hands joined around the tables. Sometimes the theme is the Bible. Sometimes it's public life. Sometimes it's about family and our jobs but always it's about ourselves and the impact of that greater force in our lives-- a higher being. All faiths. All philosophies. All believers. These are always very moving times. We share much with each other and we gain much from each other. It helps us endure in the partisan and political world in which we have chosen to labor. Kindness, civility, tolerance and forgiveness all are part of the essence of our gatherings. We try to put aside harsh judgment and criticism. I remember the words of a wonderful couplet my mother used to share. ``There is so much good in the worst of us. And so much bad in the best of us. That it ill behooves any of us to find fault with the rest of us.'' I like that one. I knew you would! We also talk about our human frailties. We talk about how easy it is to fall for the blandishments of flattery and be overcome by ego. I have often said that those who travel the high road of humility in Washington DC are not really troubled by heavy traffic! It is always a very uplifting time. Yes, actually too a time of sharing of our own vulnerabilities. It was Will Rogers, our great American humorist, who said, ``It's great to be great but it is greater to be human.'' We are very privileged to be able to serve in the United States Senate. A special obligation. People do observe us. We are scrutinized. (Indeed we are!) We hope to do more than just talk a good game. We need to live the things we learn and share. Let me close with a poem that is something we try to take from the weekly Senate prayer breakfast group and something we might hope to remember from this marvelous convocation today. That little poem. ``We'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day, We'd rather you would walk with us than merely show the way. The eye is a better pupil and more willing than the ear. Fine counsel is confusing, but example's always clear. We can soon learn how to do it if you'll let us see it done, We can watch you well in action, but your tongue too fast may run And the lecture you deliver may be very wise and true, But we'd rather get our lessons by observing what you do.'' Now there's ``The Word'' for the day! God bless you all.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a great personal pleasure for me to introduce into the Congressional Record the following statement by our distinguished colleague and my good friend, Senator Sam Nunn. His speech, delivered at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, was very powerful and given with his usual sense of thoughtfulness and sincerity. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to take a moment and read this moving address given the Senator Nunn. [National Prayer Breakfast, Feb. 1, 1996] Senator Sam Nunn--Transcript of Remarks Thank you Bob Bennett, President and Mrs. Clinton, Vice President and Mrs. Gore, fellow sinners. Have I left anyone out? I say to my good friend, Alan Simpson, Billy Graham called me also, Alan. He said, as he did in his message, that he was praying for us all. But, he felt particularly compelled to pray for Alan Simpson and for me. Alan, I don't know what he meant by that, but you and I appreciate it. A few years ago during the Bresznev era, Dr. Billy Graham returned from a highly publicized trip to Moscow and was confronted when he returned by one of his critics with these words, ``Dr. Graham, you have set the church back 50 years.'' Billy Graham lowered his head and replied, ``I am deeply ashamed. I have been trying very hard to set the church back 2,000 years.'' Today we represent different political parties, different religions and different nations, but as your invitation states, we gather as brothers and sisters in the spirit of Jesus who lived 2,000 years ago, and who lives in our hearts and minds today. The first prayer breakfast was held in 1953 in a world of great danger. President Eisenhower was newly inaugurated and had just returned from Korea where our young soldiers were fighting desperately. World Communism was on the move. Eastern Europe and the Baltics were locked behind the Iron Curtain. All across the globe, the lights of religious freedom and individual rights were going out, and the specter of nuclear destruction loomed over our planet. I wonder this morning how those who attended that first national prayer breakfast 43 years ago would have reacted if God had given them a window to see the world of the 1980's and 1990's. They would have seen truly amazing things: Catholic nuns kneeling to pray in the path of 50-ton tanks--the power of their faith bringing down the Philippine dictatorship; the Iron Curtain being smashed, not by tanks of war, but by the hands of those who built it and those who were oppressed by it; the Cold War ending, not in a nuclear inferno, but in a blaze of candles in the churches of Eastern Europe, in the singing of hymns and the opening of long-closed synagogues. I believe that God gave Joseph Stalin the answer to his question, ``How many divisions does the Pope have?'' They also would have seen a black man in South Africa emerge from prison after 26 years and become the President of his nation, personifying forgiveness and reconciliation; the first hesitant but hopeful steps toward peace between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East, and between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. They would see that in 1996 we are blessed to live in a world where more people enjoy religious freedom than at any other time in history. Can we doubt this morning that a loving God has watched over us and guided us through this dangerous and challenging period? During the early days of the Russian parliament, the Duma, I joined several other Senators in attending a meeting with a number of newly elected members of that body. The second day, a few of us were invited to a very small ``prayer breakfast'' with a group of Duma members who were just forming a fellowship, no doubt stimulated by Doug Coe. As in the larger meeting the day before, the breakfast discussion started with a degree of coldness and tension. One of the Russians, in obvious sadness and a little embarrassment, remarked that Russia was in great economic distress and that the United States was the only remaining superpower. It was clear that this was a very sensitive point for them. It had been abundantly clear the day before. Senator Dirk Kempthorne and I then pointed out that in the real sense there is only one superpower in the world, our heavenly Father who watches over us all. The tension immediately eased and the spirit of fellowship was built, and we prayed together to that superpower, the God who loves us all. Our world is a strange and tragic place. It is very ironic in many ways. The Cold War is now over, but in a tragic sense, the world has now been made safer for ethnic, tribal, and religious vengeance and savagery. Such tragedy has come to the people of Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, Haiti and others. At home, the pillar of our national strength, the American family, is crumbling. Television and movies saturate our children with sex and violence. We have watered down our moral standards to the point where many of our youth are confused, discouraged and in deep trouble. We are reaping the harvest of parental neglect, divorce, child abuse, teen pregnancy, school dropouts, illegal drugs, and streets full of violence. It's as if our house, having survived the great earthquake we call the Cold War, is now being eaten away by termites. Where should we turn this morning and in the days ahead? Our problems in America today are primarily problems of the heart. The soul of our nation is the sum of our individual characters. Yes, we must balance the federal budget and there are a lot of other things we need to do at the Federal level, but unless we change our hearts we will still have a deficit of the soul. The human inclination to seek political solutions for problems of the heart is nothing new. It is natural. Two thousand years ago, another society found itself in deeper trouble than our own. An oppressive empire strangled liberties. Violence and corruption were pervasive. Many of the people of the day hoped for the triumphant coming of a political savior, a long-expected king to establish a new, righteous government. Instead, God sent his son, a baby, born in a stable. Jesus grew up to become a peasant carpenter in a backwater town called Nazareth. He condemned sin but made it clear that he loved the sinner. He befriended beggars and prostitutes and even tax collectors while condemning the hypocrisy of those in power. He treated every individual with love and dignity and taught that we should do the same. He died like a common criminal, on a cross, and gave us the opportunity for redemption and the hope of eternal life. He also put the role of government in proper perspective when he said, ``Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.'' Shortly after I announced that I would not seek reelection, a reporter asked me, ``You've been in the Congress for 24 years; what do you consider to be your greatest accomplishment?'' I paused for a moment and replied, ``Keeping my family together for 24 years and helping my wife Colleen raise two wonderful children, Michelle and Brian.'' Upon hearing this, the reporter scoffed, ``Don't give me that soft sound-bite stuff. What laws did you get passed? When he said that, I had several thoughts--only a couple of them I can share with you this morning. Four years ago, my daughter, Michelle, and a few of her friends started an organization in Atlanta called Hands on Atlanta, making it exciting, efficient and fun for young people to volunteer their time to help those in need. Now, about 5 years later, 10,000 volunteers each month render about 20,000 hours of personal, one-on-one service. What laws have I passed that have had this impact? I also thought about the difference between being a Senator and being a father. When we in the Senate make a mistake, we have checks and balances--99 other Senate colleagues, plus the House of Representatives, plus the President, plus a final review by the Supreme Court. But, when we as parents make a mistake with our children, where are the checks and where are the balances? Congress can pass laws cracking down on those who refuse to support their children. But we cannot force husbands to honor their wives, wives to love their husbands, and both parents to nurture their children. Congress can pass laws on civil rights and equal rights, but we cannot force people of different races to love each other as brothers. Congress can promote fairness and efficiency in our tax code, but we cannot force the rich to show compassion toward the poor. We can join with our NATO allies to separate the warring factions in Bosnia, as we are doing, and give them a breathing space, but we cannot force Muslims, Croats and Serbs to live together as brothers in peace. I recently heard a story on the radio. It happened in Bosnia, but I think it has meaning for all of us. A reporter was covering that tragic conflict in the middle of Sarajevo, and he saw a little girl shot by a sniper. The back of her head had been torn away by the bullet. The reporter threw down his pad and pencil, and stopped being a reporter for a few minutes. He rushed to the man who was holding the child, and helped them both into his car. As the reporter stepped on the accelerator, racing to the hospital, the man holding the bleeding child said, ``Hurry, my friend, my child is still alive.'' A moment or two later, ``Hurry, my friend, my child is still breathing.'' A moment later, ``Hurry, my friend, my child is still warm.'' Finally, ``Hurry. Oh my God, my child is getting cold.'' When they got to the hospital, the little girl had died. As the two men were in the lavatory, washing the blood off their hands and their clothes, the man turned to the reporter and said, ``This is a terrible task for me. I must go tell her father that his child is dead. He will be heartbroken.'' The reporter was amazed. He looked at the grieving man and said, ``I thought she was your child.'' The man looked back and said, ``No, but aren't they all our children?'' Aren't they all our children? Yes, they are all our children. They are also God's children as well, and he has entrusted us with their care in Sarajevo, in Somalia, in New York City, in Los Angeles, in my hometown of Perry, Georgia and here in Washington, D.C. In the book of Micah, the prophet asks, ``Shall I give my firstborn for my transgressions, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?'' The cruelest aspect of our wars and our sins is what they do to our children. Jesus said, ``Suffer the little children to come unto me . . . For of such is the kingdom of God.'' Too often today we shorten this commandment to--suffer-- little children. Mrs. Clinton, thank you for the emphasis you have put on children and the spotlight you have shined on our challenges. You are great. The world is watching America today. People around the world are watching not just our President or our Congress or our economy or even our military deployments. They are watching our cities, our towns, and our families to see how much we value our children, and whether we care enough to stop America's moral and cultural erosion. Do we in America in 1996 love our neighbors as ourselves as explained by Bob Bennett as our theme for the morning and by Tom Lantos and his personal example? I do not have the answer to these questions this morning, and I don't pretend to. These problems can be solved only in the hearts and minds of our people and one child at a time. I do, however, have a few observations. The Cold War provided as with a clarity of purpose and a sense of unity as a people. Our survival as a nation was at stake. We came together often in fear. The challenges that confront as today are far different, but the stakes are the same. I pray that our children, all of our children, will be the bridge that brings us together, not in fear, but in love. Each year millions of our children are abused, abandoned and aborted. Millions more receive little care, discipline and almost no love. While we continue to debate our deeply- held beliefs as to which of these sins should also be violations of our criminal code, I pray that we as parents, as extended families, and as communities, will come together to provide love and spiritual care to every mother and to every child, born or unborn. Government at every level must play a role in these challenges, but I do not believe that it will be the decisive role. What, then, are our duties as leaders, not just in the world of politics and government, but in every field represented here this morning and throughout our land? Like basketball stars Charles Barkley and Dennis Rodman, we are role models whether we like it or not. I believe that the example we set, particularly for our young people, may be the most important responsibility of public service. We must demonstrate with our daily lives that it is possible to be involved in politics and still retain intellectual honesty and moral and ethical behavior. We are all sinners, so we will slip and we will fall. But I have felt God's sustaining hand through every phase of my life--growing up in Perry, Georgia, raising a family, my relationship with my wife Colleen, in Senate floor debates, in committee meetings, visiting our troops in war, or being part of a mission for peace. In the years ahead, when I think back on my public service, I am certain that my most cherished memories will be those moments spent with my colleagues in the Senate prayer breakfasts and in my meetings with leaders from around the world, usually arranged by Doug Coe, in the spirit of Jesus. I have also been blessed by many friends in the Senate and also a small fellowship with a group of Senate brothers like the late Dewey Bartlett, Republican of Oklahoma; Lawton Chiles, Democrat of Florida; Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico; Harold Hughes, Democrat of Iowa; and Mark Hatfield, Republican of Oregon. No one can accuse that group of being of like minds politically. Yet, these brothers have listened to my problems, shared in my joys, held me accountable and upheld me in their prayers. Fellowship in the spirit of Jesus does amazing things. It puts political and philosophical differences, even profound differences, even profound differences, in a totally different perspective. I believe that 2,000 years ago Jesus was speaking to each of us when he delivered his Sermon on the Mount. And, my prayer this morning for our leaders and our nation is in the spirit of his words then. May we who would be leaders always be aware that we must first be servants. May we who compete in the arena of government and politics remember that we are commanded to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. I can't find any exception for the news media or our opponents. May we who seek to be admired by others remember that when we practice our piety before men in order to be seen by them, we will have no reward in heaven. May we who have large egos and great ambitions recall that the Kingdom of Heaven is promised to those who are humble and poor in spirit. May we who depend on publicity as our daily bread recall that when we do a secret kindness to others, our Father, who knows all secrets, will reward us. May the citizens whom we serve as stewards of government be sensitive to the fact that we are human beings subject to error and that while we need their critiques, we also desperately need their prayers. May we never forget that the final judgment of our tenure here on earth will not be decided by a majority vote, and that an election is not required to bring us home. May God bless each of you.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to introduce into the Congressional Record the following speech given by my friend and colleague, Congressman Pete Geren, at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning. As a member of the National Prayer Breakfast Committee, Congressman Geren clearly emulates the values represented by the National Prayer Breakfast. I urge my colleagues to read Pete Geren's address with the thoughtfulness and sincerity with which it was delivered. National Prayer Breakfast Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Vice President, Mrs. Gore, distinguished guests one and all, I bring you greetings from the Prayer Breakfast of the U.S. House of Representatives. My charge today is to tell you about our prayer breakfast, with the hope and prayer that perhaps you can build on our experience in your nation, your state, your neighborhood or place of work. In the book of Matthew, Jesus told us: ``Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.'' Today those gathered in His name number in the thousands, and we thank Him for his presence. Every Thursday morning that the House is in session, we gather, 40-50 members strong, in His name. Our gathering is extraordinary by Capitol Hill standards, for so many reasons, and truly a blessing to those who have made it a part of their lives. Extraordinary by Capitol Hill standards: In a super-charged environment where most all meetings are restricted by party membership, even more narrowly, by philosophical subsets within a party, by race, by religion, by region or by cause, our meetings are inter-faith, ecumenical, multi-racial, non- partisan and as diverse as this great land of ours. The Irish brogue of South Boston, the syrupy drawl of South Georgia, the sharp and clipped tongue of Brooklyn, the twang of Texas and the flat tones of Minnesota fill the room every week. There are no guests, not even family members, no cameras, no press, no record of the proceedings. It is as private as Capitol Hill can be and members share their hearts. I said no guests, well there is one exception: Legislators or parliamentarians from around the world join us to learn about our breakfast, and, on occasion, return years later to tell us of the leadership groups they have started in their land. Today, prayer breakfasts are held in over 100 countries, in countries as far-flung as India, Peru, and Japan. So in a way, then we engage in outreach to the world, but that is not our main purpose. Our focus is internal, on the lives, hearts and souls of our colleagues. It is fellowship, an eye in the storm of the swirling world of politics. There is a saying that ``If you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog''. Our breakfast belies that expression. Breakfast begins at 8 am and it is the only $3.00 breakfast left in Washington. I am sure it somehow violates the gift ban. We visit informally for most of the first half hour. When we are called to order we begin our day's program with a scripture reading. Our very own General, Congressman Sonny Montgomery, then brings us up to date on the lives, and too often of late, the deaths of House members, past and present. He shares with us celebrations such as recent births and the trials and tribulations of others. We then lift up our colleagues and their families in prayer, with rejoiceful prayers of thanksgiving, prayers for healing, for comfort and for the blessing of our nation and our leaders. We follow the prayer with a hymn, long on enthusiasm, but short on harmony. Congressman Jake Pickle of Texas used to regale us with the history of each hymn, or at least the ``history according to Jake'', but he now has retired and we miss him. Following the hymn, a House member, tells us his/her life story--about the influences that shaped his life, values, philosophy, politics and faith. On these occasions, members offer a window into their souls that I expect few others have ever seen. Through this sharing each of us, so often is surprised that, beyond the accents, geography and political labels, surprised at how much we have in common. After hearing Joe Moakley of Massachusetts tell of his South Boston childhood, Charlie Rangel, who grew up in Harlem, said ``Joe, we really grew up in the same neighborhood we just never knew it!''. Regarding our differences, and they are many, we grow to understand them better. We close with another prayer. We pray that we may be salt and light in this world we share. Each of us truly is blessed by our participation and pray that somehow our Congress and nation, one nation under God, are as well.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today marks a very important milestone for one of the most respected and enduring leaders of the business world. Ed Meyer celebrates his 25th anniversary as chairman and chief executive officer of Grey Advertising, during which time he has been a shining example of a good corporate citizen. I feel it is important to bring Ed Meyer's many extraordinary accomplishments to the attention of this body so that we may appreciate and honor this exemplary American. There are many successful executives in this country, but relatively few have been at the helm of an industry giant for so long. Indeed, Grey Advertising is an industry giant--largely because of the vision, skill, integrity and humaneness of Ed Meyer. When he joined the firm, Grey had 1 office and 14 clients. Today, under Ed's leadership, there are 277 offices in 72 countries, including APCO public affairs here in Washington. As a highly successful international entrepreneur, Ed Meyer has been a pioneer in leading U.S. firms to new markets throughout the world, thereby advancing America's position as a leader in the global marketplace of products and ideas. Ed has been an ambassador of the American way of doing business and an example of the best of American executives. Ed is also a good employer. No one can run an organization for 25 years without building a lasting relationship of trust and respect with the individuals who are behind the successes. Ed is a good citizen, generously giving his valuable time and energy to the community. Grey Advertising is a model American company and Ed Meyer is a model executive. Ed Meyer is truly an invaluable American resource and I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ed Meyer on the 25th anniversary of his enlightened leadership of Grey Advertising.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, the world was shocked with the recent release of a detailed report by Human Rights Watch which documented the fact that a majority of children who entered a Shanghai orphanage during the late 1980's and early 1990's died within a year. The report suggests that there has been a deliberate policy of starving these orphans rather than caring for them. This deliberate and unimaginable treatment of one of the most vulnerable groups of Chinese society is both stunning and reprehensible. Tragically, this is consistent with Chinese human rights policies that we have seen far too often in the recent past. Mr. Speaker, an excellent article appeared in the Washington Post yesterday--Wednesday, January 24, 1996--by Dr. Walter Reich, a physician who is the director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the chairman of the Committee on Human Rights of the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Reich draws chilling parallels between the practices that have been observed in China and the horrors of the Holocaust. I urge my colleagues to read Dr. Reich's most thoughtful article and consider the somber implications of China's appalling human rights record. Holocaust: The China Parallel (By Walter Reich) On rare occasions, historical parallels of contemporary events are so sharp that they pierce decades of time to penetrate our minds and skewer our souls. Accusations of the deaths, by deliberate neglect, of disabled children in Chinese orphanages, made by a credible human rights organization, summon up memories of the deaths, by both deliberate neglect and direct killing, of disabled children in Nazi German institutions. Those memories impose on us a powerful obligation to respond to the accusations against the Chinese orphanages by calling for an international investigation--and, if the accusations are confirmed, to take decisive action to end the medicalized killing of helpless innocents. Human Rights Watch has reported that a majority of children, who entered a Shanghai orphanage in the late 1980s and early 1990s died within a year; that this high death rate was typical of orphanages throughout China, and that it was a result of a policy, euphemistically called ``summary resolution,'' which selected children for death by starvation, sometimes aided by the administration of sedating drugs. These deaths, the report noted, were attributed to such causes as ``congenital malformations of the brain'' and ``mental deficiency.'' Critics have cited a number of reasons for the deliberate starving of these Chinese children. Many of the children admitted to the orphanages were abandoned because they were born disabled. In a country that has an official policy limiting families to one child, some couples abandon disabled children so that they can try again for a healthy child; others may do so to shift to the state a caretaking burden they are unable to bear. In the Chinese orphanages, according to these critics, it is these disabled children who tend to be subjected to ``summary resolution''--deliberately starved, not treated when they develop easily treatable medical conditions, sometimes medicated to keep them quiet as they starve, and confined to ``dying rooms.'' Chinese orphanages realize significant income from adoptions of healthy babies by childless Western couples; disabled babies are not only unlikely candidates for adoption but also no less burdensome for their institutional caretakers than they would have been for the parents who abandoned them. The parallels with the treatment of disabled children in German institutions during the Nazi era are haunting. Although the vast bulk of Nazi killing was, of course, eventually focused on Jews and became what we now know as the Holocaust, it was heralded, before the start of the Second World War, by the systematic, government-sponsored killing of children and adults who were disabled--a practice that continued after the war began. The killing methods, especially in the cases of children, often involved starvation and the administration of lethal doses of medications. In the cases of disabled adults, direct killing using gas was common--a method that, once refined, was used on a mass scale against Jews after the German armies rolled into Poland. The German killing of disabled children and adults was justified on the grounds that these persons constituted ``life unworthy of life.'' After 1934, mental hospitals were urged to neglect their patients. In 1935, Hitler was confident that a war would require healthy people, and that during a war it would be possible to easily eliminate the ``incurably ill.'' According to the reports provided by Human Rights Watch, the starved children in the Chinese orphanages look very much like the starved children in the German ``Children's Specialty Institutions''; the Chinese institutions, too, administer sedatives to some children selected for death; they, too, use false diagnoses as coverups; they, too, cremate the remains of starved children; and they, too, employ physicians, many of whom probably tell themselves that the children dying under their care would have died anyway, and in any case are useless eaters in a country challenged by scarce resources. It should be clear; even if the existence of the ``dying rooms'' in Chinese orphanages were confirmed, it would not amount to the Holocaust, or even a semblance of it. Unlike Nazi Germany, China has not developed a systematic racial ideology, particularly one that requires all members of certain groups to be killed because of ethnic origin. Chinese leaders, as contemptuous of human rights as they have been, have not promulgated any such ideology; nor is it known that they have promulgated national or regional programs aimed at killing disabled children. But if the report by Human Rights Watch is correct, it seems clear that the general circumstances in China, including the lack of individual human rights, have enabled at least some Chinese orphanages to engage secretly in practices that parallel some of the practices, particularly death by starvation, that were carried out by Nazi Germany against disabled children and adults. If the Human Rights Watch report can be verified by international inspections, the parallels between the Chinese orphanages and the Nazi programs to kill disabled children are alarming. These parallels remind us that human beings, including physicians and other caregivers, are extraordinarily vulnerable to inhuman acts and extraordinarily capable of justifying their behavior on what they see as rational grounds. And they remind us that countries in which democratic institutions are forcibly forbidden and human rights systematically quashed are ones in which human life becomes, quite simply, expendable. The experience of the Holocaust, and the world's silence in response to it, have taught us that we must never shut our ears to reports of evil acts. We must investigate such reports and respond vigorously if they are confirmed. We have an obligation to do that--to ourselves, to the most defenseless of our fellow human beings, and to memory.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a truly extraordinary American and a great friend, Mr. Arnold Lorber, on the occasion of his 65th birthday. As a child, Arnold fought for his life and the lives of many victims of the Holocaust throughout World War II. Today, through his aggressive pursuit of excellence, he is a leader in an important American industry and a great asset to our country. Arnold is truly one in a million. Cheated of his childhood, his life was molded in a torrent of evil. In early 1942, his father, a well- respected businessman and entrepreneur in his native city of Kosice, Czechoslovakia, was taken away to a forced labor camp and never seen again, with the rest of his family and community to follow shortly thereafter. Showing the courage and intellect that would characterize the rest of his life, Arnold posed as a member of the Hitler Youth while he smuggled food and supplies to those who had eluded the death camps. Arnold Lorber's exceptional character, shown in the heroism he displayed during the horrors of the Holocaust, manifests itself today in his leadership and innovation in the business world. Arnold is a pioneer in the textile industry who has devoted his life to introducing new technologies and production methods to this important industry. Lorber Industries, which Arnold created in 1969 and has directed ever since, is the undisputed leader of the southern California textile industry and is an invaluable asset to our country's manufacturing base. Arnold has won countless awards, including the prestigious West Coast Entrepreneur of the Year and the Tommy Award, awarded by the American Printed Fabrics Council, Inc., in recognition of his innovation in design and color. As Arnold established himself in the business world, he did not forget the important responsibility that he bears as a survivor of the Holocaust. He is a founder of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Museum's Los Angeles chairman. Through the museum, he has devoted countless hours of his valuable time to teaching the history and the lessons of the Holocaust to all Americans and future generations. Arnold has contributed a great deal to our country through his willingness to take risks in pursuit of better and more efficient ways of manufacturing and his philanthropic devotion to the task of remembrance. I invite my colleagues to join me in expressing our appreciation for Arnold Lorber's many accomplishments and his continuing devotion to making this country a better place.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Airline Ambassador Program. Initiated by an outstanding young woman, Nancy Larson, this program has already succeeded in extending help and compassion to the underprivileged children of the world, in teaching care and concern for the environment and in promoting a sense of community among the diverse ethnic groups of our planet. The Airline Ambassador Program has created a network of airline personnel who volunteer their time to humanitarian service in their own communities and abroad. Since 1993, airline ambassadors have volunteered in a wide variety of highly effective activities throughout the world. They have participated in nine international conferences, hosted five interactive global tea parties which promote intercultural sharing, sponsored four humanitarian missions to former Yugoslavia, Ecuador, Mexico and Bolivia, and coordinated donations of hospital supplies, food, toys, and baby items for orphanages and needy children. Airline personnel have escorted hundreds of orphans and children in need of medical care. The unique ability of airline personnel to span the globe at a moment's notice allows them to assist in ways others cannot. They are creating an example by these activities of sharing and caring for the travelling public at large. Inflight articles and videos will further reinforce this idea of travelling to make a positive impact on the world. I am confident that as the Airline Ambassador Program gains the support and momentum it deserves, it will be able to accomplish even more through expansion of its many excellent programs. Please join me in expressing appreciation for the unique way in which airline ambassadors and Nancy Larson are making this world a better place for all of us to live.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday the Washington Post dedicated the Outlook Section of the newspaper to its outstanding editorial cartoonist, Herb Block--Herblock--in appropriate recognition of his 50 years of cartooning for the Post. In 1946 Herb accepted the offer to join the Washington Post, and for the past half-century, we have been blessed or--at least in the view of some--cursed with his wit, his humor, and his principles. The selection of his cartoons from the past 50 years, which was included in the Outlook Section, brought back memories of the high points and low points of the political history of our Nation. Looking through these cartoons has brought Herb's wonderful gift into dramatic perspective for me. With a few well drawn lines and a few well chosen words, he has the ability to convey the essence of an entire complex political issue and highlight the absurdities and inconsistencies. But the laughter is never at the expense of the message. This is not humor for the sake of humor, but wit with a point. I admire Herb's humor, but even more I admire his principles. His cartoons always reflect his strongly held point of view, and I must say that most of the time I am in perfect agreement with him. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago when I was chairman of the House subcommittee conducting the investigation of fraud and mismanagement at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Herb did a number of delightful and insightful cartoons about the HUD scandal. At that time, I invited Herb to join me for lunch at the Member's dining room. We spent a delightful hour or more talking about his background and highlights of his career. He mentioned then that he generally avoids spending time with those of us whom he cartoons, but I was delighted that he made an exception for me that day. It was an engaging experience that I still remember fondly. Mr. Speaker, we in the Congress seem to find ourselves the frequent focus of Herb's sharp wit and his sharper pen. This past year, and particularly these past 19 days of Government shutdown, have provided him with abundant material, which he has exploited with this typical skill. In the past few days, as well as throughout the last half- century, Herb's humor and his principled point of view are important in keeping political issues in perspective. If this were Japan, I am certain that Herblock would be officially declared a ``National Treasure.'' He is a national treasure, and I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to him for his contribution to our national political debate and to the strength of our democracy. Mr. Speaker, Kate Graham--the chairman of the Executive Committee of the Washington Post Co. who has had extensive experience and frequent exasperation with Herb--paid homage to Herblock in a wonderful column in Sunday's Outlook. I ask that her column be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to read it. [From the Washington Post, Dec. 31, 1995] A Tiger by the Tail--the Turbulent Pleasures of Life With Herb (By Katharine Graham) My mother had a saying: ``Any man worth marrying is impossible to live with.'' Why does this make me think of my glorious life and times with Herblock, one of the greatest ornaments to The Post and to all of journalism? Underneath his genius for cartooning and writing lies a modest, sweet, aw-shucks personality. Underneath that lies a layer of iron and steel. For the publishers and editors over him--or under him, as it would be more accurate to say--it's like having a tiger by the tail. Herb started out in his hometown of Chicago doing editorial cartoons for the Chicago Daily News in 1929. Four years later he became a syndicated editorial cartoonist for the Newspaper Enterprise Association Service in Cleveland, where he won the first of his three Pulitzer Prizes. When World War II came along, Herb went into the Army and produced and edited a feature service for Army newspapers. After the war, Herb was passing through Washington. A chance encounter led to a meeting with my father, Eugene Meyer, who happened to be desperately looking for a cartoonist for The Post. Herb provided a few samples and in return, my father gave Herb a subscription to the paper. ``So you can see how you like us,'' my father explained. Evidently the attraction was mutual. Herb arrived at The Post the same week that my husband, Phil Graham, arrived in January of 1946. The extraordinary quality of Herb's eye, his insights and sharp comments immediately stood out. When The Post was struggling for its existence, Herb was one of its major assets, as he has been throughout his 50 years here. The Post and Herblock are forever intertwined. If The Post is his forum, he helped create it. And he has been its shining light. Herb fought for and earned a unique position at the paper: one of complete independence of anybody and anything. Journalistic enterprises run best when writers and editors have a lot of autonomy. But Herb's case is extreme. And because he's a genius, it works. Since he arrived at The Post, five editors and five publishers all have learned a cardinal rule: Don't mess with Herb. He's just as tough within the confines of The Post as he is in the political world outside. Herb's independence evolved gradually. In the early years, he made several sketches for the day's cartoon and dutifully submitted them to the editorial page editor to choose. When the editor was away, Herb began showing them to a preferred group of reporters and editorial writers whose opinions he valued. Gradually, the editor's role was dropped altogether. Of course, this has produced a few tense moments. In 1952, during the Eisenhower-Stevenson campaign, The Post endorsed Ike, but Herb supported Stevenson and continued to jab away at the general. Which point of view do you think made the bigger impression with readers? Finally, Herb's cartoon was dropped by the paper for the last days of the campaign. Since his work continued to be syndicated in other papers, The Post looked silly. The Washington Daily News ran a headline: ``Where's Mr. Block? One of D.C.'s Top Draw-ers Is Missing.'' Even earlier, Phil protested Herb's cartoons on Congress. He feared they made The Post look as though it was ridiculing and undermining the strength of that institution. ``I think we should put that little `Congress' character back in the ink bottle,'' Phil wrote. Back came three eloquent pages from Herb including, ``When a majority of Congress fails to act, or acts badly, I think it's fair to be critical of Congress.'' I too sometimes opened the paper and gasped at Herb's cartoons, particularly during Watergate when we were so embattled on all fronts. But I had learned not to interfere. And anyway, most of the time we're on the same wavelength. Even when we aren't, I should confess, I generally find myself laughing uproariously at the cartoon that has caused my apprehension. In this sense, Herb always wins. Herb studies events and reacts to them in his own way. His point of view is liberal, and his instincts are common- sensical. But his common sense has a special twist. As economist Ken Galbraith once put it: ``While Herb appreciates virtue, his real interest is in awfulness.'' His mind turns to the rascals, the phonies and the frauds. He has pursued them for 50 years without ever flagging except for time taken off for a couple of heart attacks and operations. But these ordeals were probably nothing compared with the distress he has caused a number of other people, such as President Nixon and Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It was Herb who is said to have coined the term McCarthyism, using it on a tar barrel. Herb's unique ability to crystalize what is right--or, more likely, wrong--about an issue or a person has often influenced the course of events in Washington. Naturally, the strength and impact of his cartoons often provoke strong reactions from readers who disagree. Part of the job of Post publishers is to defend Herb and the paper from these reactions. ``Since Herblock is the most gifted political cartoonist of our times,'' Phil wrote one reader, ``by definition he therefore cannot be an organization man. Being an old reactionary and individualist, I am all for people who simply have to be individualistic. . . . I think--though it will amaze you--that Herblock probably considers himself frustrated and suffocated by our policy.'' I too have written my share of explanatory letters. One, in 1989, said that to cartoon is to caricature, and people who are very gifted at cartooning sometimes offend. ``Most of the time, however, cartoons illuminate or amuse,'' the letter went on to say. I doubt the irate reader was completely satisfied, but the statement, I believe, is true. As Herb begins his second 50 years at The Post, he has lost none of his dynamic energy and original insight. He is going as strong as ever and, as a matter of fact, has just published his 12th book. It's about his cat Bella and, as usual, it's just wonderful. Herb does caricature the cat, but I don't think Don Graham and Meg Greenfield will hear from her in protest. In fact, Bella has proven she's more than a match for Herb. For example, she is known to complain about Herb's legendary propensity to live in a rat's nest of old newspapers and magazines, discarded clothes and paint brushes and pencils. ``We cats are neat,'' Bella is alleged to have said, while frowning on those who are not. Now maybe Herb knows what it feels like to have a cat by the tail. It's a privilege, a pleasure and an honor we all have loved and treasured.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my colleagues in the Congress to an article written by our distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Barney Frank. It appeared in the Boston Globe on December 25 of last year. Barney has given an outstanding analysis of how Israel has dealt with the emotional and political aftermath of the tragic assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. His analysis is particularly significant--not only for democratic Israel, but also for industrial societies such as our own and for developing democratic societies in the former Soviet Union and in the Third World--who must deal with the relationship between terrorism and democracy, between violence and freedom. As he said: ``For nearly 50 years, Israel has been the most persistent and successful in demonstrating that democracy is not a luxury to be enjoyed only by societies that are wealthy, secure and well insulated from outside attack, but is a recognition of the fundamental right of men and women to govern themselves freely.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask that the entire article by Mr. Frank be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues read it and give it thoughtful and careful attention. Democracy Reaffirmed in Israel In the emotional aftermath of the searing, tragic murder of Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli society has understandably been deeply engaged in a debate over the role of dissent in a democracy. But the most important aspect of this debate--both for Israel and the rest of the world--is what is not being discussed. No significant elements within Israel are arguing that there should be any serious curtailment of the vigorous, open democracy that has characterized Israel since its beginning. It is significant that Israelis are not questioning their commitment to democracy at this terrible time. In many societies, the murder of a popular leader in the midst of a delegate set of negotiations involving the security of the Nation would have led to widespread repression of elements in the opposition party, whether or not they were connected to the murder. The sad fact is that in most societies facing the kind of overwhelming physical threats to their existence that Israel has lived with since 1948, democracy would never have flourished in the first place. The mature, pained, thoughtful response of Israeli society to this murder is a reminder of something that would be a grave error to overlook: every condition that has been put forward by repressive rulers in the post-war world to justify the suppression of democracy has been present in Israel since its inception, and the experience of Israel is an eloquent repudiation of the notion that democracy is a luxury to be indulged only by those nations that are prosperous and secure. From its birth, Israel's existence was threatened by attack from the overwhelmingly larger hostile forces which surround it. While fighting to defend its right to exist, Israel has also coped with the difficult economic problems of a new nation, compounded by the military drain on its resources and its unshakable commitment to absorb large numbers of Jewish refugees from oppression elsewhere in the world. Through all of this, Israel has maintained a commitment to a flourishing, vigorous democracy, governed by leaders chosen in elections as free as those held anywhere in the world, amidst untrammeled--often raucous--free speech. Among those who have enjoyed the rights of free speech and the ability to participate fully in free elections are members of the Arab minority, some of whom reject the very legitimacy of the state of Israel. But that rejection has never been used to prevent them from participating fully in the electoral process on a one-person/one-vote basis, and those they vote for are seated in parliament with full rights to vote, debate, etc. There should be nothing remarkable about these facts, and in the United States or much of Western Europe they would not be. But among those nations which have come into being since the end of the war, this pattern is an exception. And it is especially exceptional in nations that have faced severe external threats from heavily armed enemies, have been struggling simultaneously with the difficult task of economic development, have been severely divided internally over some fundamental issues involving the security of the nation and have undergone the difficult social process of absorption of large numbers of migrants, many of whom come ill-prepared at first to deal with the complexities of modern society. In fact, Israel has now become through the peace process an exporter of democracy in the Middle East. The elections that will soon be held in the West Bank will be freer and more democratically legitimated than any other elections in the nations surrounding Israel. It is highly unlikely that Yasser Arafat would have decided that elections were the appropriate path to power in the emerging Palestinian entity had that not been a condition laid down by the Israeli government in the ongoing negotiations. As with our own country, Israeli democracy has not been perfect. There have been lapses, although these have been few compared with the territories. And much of what we know about these occasional lapses comes from the vigorous denunciation of them from people and organizations within Israel, because its democracy is among other things appropriately self- critical. Israel is not the only new nation that is working hard to demonstrate that democracy is the best way to cope with the multiple dangers in the post-war world. Through the efforts of Nelson Mandela and others, South Africa is also on the list of societies that seek to make this point. But for nearly 50 years, Israel has been the most persistent and successful in demonstrating that democracy is not a luxury to be enjoyed only by societies that are wealthy, secure and well insulated from outside attack, but is a recognition of the fundamental right of men and women to govern themselves freely. When properly understood, it strengthens society and better enables it to cope with the gravest problems.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, next month in Russia, an event will take place that marks an important milestone in that country's long and difficult road toward democracy, freedom, and the development of an open and pluralistic society. Due in large part to the efforts of one of the leading entrepreneurs of Russia, Mr. Vladimir Goussinsky, the Uniting Convention of the Russian Jewish Congress will convene in Moscow in early January to bring together the religious and secular Jewish communities of Russia on the basis of their common ethnic and spiritual heritage. Mr. Speaker, this historic event marks the beginning of the Jewish community coming into its own in the new post- Communist Russia, and it reflects the establishment of the Jewish community as a full-fledged and coequal member of Russian religious life. The Russian Jewish Congress, with the assistance and support of the World Jewish Congress, will give a unified voice to the important Jewish community of Russia, which has long been without such an organization to represent the broad concerns of its Jewish community. The aim of this organization is to unite the religious and secular Jewish communities of Russia in order to develop and finance programs to revive Jewish language and cultural traditions, establish national schools, restore synagogue buildings, and assist disadvantaged and needy members of the Jewish Community. Mr. Speaker, under the outstanding leadership of Vladimir Goussinsky, there is no doubt in my mind that this organization will succeed in its worthy goals. Mr. Goussinsky is known internationally as a champion of free enterprise and freedom of the press in Russia, and now he has established himself as a leader of the resurgent Jewish community by convening this Uniting Convention of the Russian Jewish Congress. He has done a great service to his country by leading the way toward a pluralistic society that honors and respects the diverse cultures and religious communities that are contained within its borders. Mr. Goussinsky is director general of the Most Group of Companies, one of Russia's largest and most productive private enterprises. He was a theater director who drove a gypsy cab on the side to supplement his income under the Communist regime. In 1986, just 5 days after Soviet President Michael Gorbachev legalized private commercial activities, Mr. Goussinsky established his first company. He later created one of the first Russian-American joint ventures, which became the foundation for the Most Group. The Most Group now includes a diverse portfolio of some of the most visible and successful businesses in Russia, employing over 12,000 people and now with assets of nearly $500 million. These include Most Development, a real estate and construction division which has spearheaded the rebuilding and reconstruction of key areas of Moscow; Most Bank, one of the largest banks in Russia; Segodnya, one of Moscow's most popular daily newspapers; and NTV, Russia's only independent television network. Mr. Goussinsky has led the fight for freedom of the press in Russia. Segodnya and NTV are regarded worldwide as being the most independent and honest media outlets in Russia. Mr. Goussinsky has repeatedly continued to report objectively--and in many cases critically-- regarding government policies and Russian domestic and international politics. This commitment to freedom of the press has been pursued despite enormous political pressure from the government and other forces in Russia. The Russian people and the Russian Jewish community are fortunate indeed to enjoy Mr. Goussinsky's heroic efforts to bring Russia out of this extremely difficult time and encourage the transition to a free market and to an open and pluralistic democracy. I invite my colleagues to join me in applauding Mr. Goussinsky for his efforts in convening the Uniting Convention of the Russian Jewish Congress and in fostering freedom and democratic progress in Russia.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Barney Gottstein through his life's work and achievements, has become the quintessential embodiment of the American Dream in its finest form. As Barney celebrates his 70th birthday, I rise today as a friend and an admirer to honor his extraordinary spirit and character. Born of hardy pioneer parents who created a warm and nurturing home in the cold, forbidding, and primitive surroundings of Alaska in the early 1920's, he eagerly and gratefully absorbed their profoundly puritan values. Barney's father spent his first bitterly cold Alaska winter in a tent. His mother was an outstanding school teacher who overcame the physical hardships with her contagious and living passion for Alaska's children and the pursuit of knowledge. Barney's life has consisted of a never-ending attempt to put the finest values on which this country was built into daily practice in all his endeavors. He served our country with great distinction in the military and he was a brilliant student at the University of Washington. His analytical excellence was widely acclaimed by his professors and fellow students. He was a magnificent father to his five children, and he contributed in a vast and unique way to the economic development of his beloved home State of Alaska. His passion was to open doors of opportunity to others, and he found endless avenues to pursue these goals through local, statewide, and national leadership. He served as a Democratic National Committeeman, Democratic State Chairman, delegate to national conventions, strategist and leader in countless political races for local, State, and Federal office. Barney Gottstein's philanthropic activities are far-flung, enormously generous, creative, and overwhelmingly anonymous. I have never met a person who is more interested in getting the job done and less interested in getting credit for it. For many years, Barney has been a leader in helping Israel through a biotech venture capital investment foundation designed to make that country self-sufficient and functioning at the cutting edge of technology. Despite his propensity for anonymous philanthropy, Barney has been widely recognized for his life's achievements. He was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws by the University of Alaska at Fairbanks in 1991 ``for his outstanding record of public service and for his leadership in building and promoting Alaska's educational system.'' He was named to the Alaska Business Hall of Fame in 1989 for his immense contributions to the economic well-being of the State. I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Barney on his 70th birthday for his many substantial contributions to our country and in wishing him many happy years with his wonderful family and many friends.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the Chinese Government has once again ignored internationally recognized human rights with the imprisonment and the holding of a show trial of political activist Wei Jingsheng. Mr. Wei, who is perhaps the best known and boldest advocate of democracy and human rights in China, was convicted at a sham trial last Wednesday, December 13, of trying to overthrow the Government of China. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison for trying to overthrow the Chinese Government. Mr. Wei has already spent 16 years in prison for his activities in support of democracy. He was arrested in 1979, when he was only 29 years of age, and then was only released from prison in September 1993 when the Chinese Government was attempting to improve its image in an effort to win international support for Beijing to host the Olympic Games. Early in 1994--thanks in large part to a resolution which I introduced in the Congress and which was adopted overwhelmingly by this House and expressed opposition to holding the Olympic Games in Beijing because of China's deplorable record on human rights-- China did not receive the honor of hosting the Olympic Games. Within a short period of time, Mr. Wei was again arrested by Chinese authorities. He was held in prison without being charged for some 20 months--from April 1994 until this week. Mr. Speaker, Chinese authorities should know that this callous, illegal and reprehensible action meets with the universal condemnation of democratic peoples and those who support human rights around the world. At the same time, however, we are not limited to verbal protestations against the Chinese action against Mr. Wei and other human rights and pro-democracy leaders. There are meaningful and effective actions that we can and should take. First, Mr. Speaker, I am bipartisan in my criticism of the actions of the administration on Chinese human rights violations. I have criticized the Bush administration and the Clinton administration. The Bush administration made the unfortunate decision to extend MFN treatment and cooperation with the Chinese Government in a number of spheres--despite the outrageous Chinese actions in Tiananmen Square in 1989. This was one of the most horrible and vile acts of a government against peaceful students who were seeking to bring democracy and respect for human rights to their country. The Bush administration continued to advocate and work for continuing to grant MFN to the Chinese Government despite its reprehensible actions. The Clinton administration, likewise has continued this appalling policy. The administration explicitly de-linked human rights from the issue of MFN and United States economic relations with China. This was a critical error. The Chinese only understand power, and when we fail to give economic teeth to our commitment to human rights, that commitment rings hollow. We are now reaping--with the unfortunate imprisonment of Wei Jingsheng--the tragic consequences of this policy of de-linking human rights from meaningful action that will let the Chinese Government know that we mean business when we express our support for human rights. The second institution which deserves to be criticized in connection with this latest anti-democratic action by the Chinese Government are the American and the international business community. I call upon American businesses to search their conscience. Mr. Speaker, human rights and democracy are infinitely more important than profits. Our business community is timid and tepid in its support for human rights and for democracy in China. I urge the American business community to give attention to the values and principles that have made our Nation great and that permit them to conduct their business activities so successfully in the United States and in democratic and market economies around the world. We now have a trade surplus with China that is approaching $40 billion--a substantial sum, Mr. Speaker. American business has considerable leverage in China, but American businesses are so concerned not to rock the boat, not to upset the balance in their relations with their Chinese business partners, that they will not stand up for human rights and for democratic progress in China. This is short-sighted and counterproductive, and it could ultimately undermine the business objectives that these companies are pursuing. Third, Mr. Speaker, this Congress has not spoken clearly and decisively on this issue, and we bear a portion of the blame for the problems that we are now seeing. Earlier this year, this House voted a gentle slap upon the Chinese wrist for their appalling human rights record, but then the majority in this House voted an unconditional extension of MFN trade benefits for China. This was done, Mr. Speaker, despite the absolutely arrogant and appalling record of China on human rights. We cannot expect strong words to have the impact of real action. I deplore the action of the majority in this House--and I add that it was a bipartisan majority including our colleagues on both sides of the aisle--in voting to continue MFN trade benefits with no consideration or link to China's actions in the area of human rights and democratization. We in this House can--and occasionally in the past we have--taken action that will get the attention of the Chinese. Earlier this year, the House by a unanimous vote and the Senate by a near-unanimous vote approved a resolution which I introduced expressing the sense of the Congress that President Lee Teng-hui of Taiwan should be permitted to visit his alma mater, Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, to be honored as a distinguished alumnus. The Chinese took notice of that action, Mr. Speaker. They recalled their Ambassador and they took action. While the response was negative, we succeeded in getting their attention. Mr. Speaker, that is what is needed. We must let the Chinese know that we can do more than express nice words of support for human rights democracy. We mean business. Human rights are serious. Human rights are of great importance to the American people. Our interest goes beyond making nice-sounding statements. The Chinese Government must know that human rights are important to us. The imprisonment of Mr. Wei Jingsheng is an outrage. It should be met with tough and meaningful action. It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to continue to press this struggle. I urge my colleagues to continue that fight as well. Mr. Speaker, on the day that Mr. Wei was tried and sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment, his sister, Ms. Wei Shanshan, issued a moving and important statement which gives more of the background of Mr. Wei and information about his trial. I ask Ms. Wei's statement be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to read her important statement. Statement by Wei Shanshan In 1979 my brother Wei was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for calling for democracy and human rights. He was twenty-nine years old, and by the time he was released from prison in 1993, he was forty-three. Six months later, he was again detained, and disappeared for twenty months, just because he talked with journalists and foreign diplomats. Now he has been sentenced to fourteen years in prison. He will be sixty years old by the time he serves the sentence. Wei was charged with conspiring to subvert the government. The evidence included money he had in the bank from an international award he received for his human rights work, files in his computer, his proposal to hold an art exhibit and concert, and organizing cultural exchanges. He planned to establish a business in order to hire families of the victims of the June 4th 1989 massacre. Also, letters to his overseas friends discussing human rights and democracy. The action he was accused of was having connections with hostile forces abroad, and publishing articles and expressing views damaging to China, including expressing support for Tibetan independence. Wei gave a one hour defense, arguing against every single point. He said he does not support economic sanctions against China, but the Most Favored Nation trading status debate is not about sanctions, it's about putting pressure on China to improve human rights and respect the rule of law, and for the benefit of China. Several times he had to stop in his speech because he felt faint. I am very worried now about his health, because he has serious heart problems and high blood pressure. Can Wei survive another fourteen years in prison, my family wonders? We cannot stand silent before this outrageous violation of human rights and international law. Since the government formally arrested and charged him, Chinese citizens have written letters to the National People's Congress to protest this injustice. This includes professor Ding Zilin, at the People's University, and many others. We all know that in China speaking out on behalf of dissidents is extremely dangerous. But they are willing to take great risks to speak out for my brother. But Western governments are talking quietly and cautiously, afraid to offend the Chinese leaders. What are they afraid of? Is it only because they are worried about losing trade and business deals? Is money more important than freedom of conscience? I also heard that some people have told the U.S. government that Wei is not that important in China, or not well known, and therefore it is not worthwhile to defend him. I want to say that he doesn't have a party, he has no power. He is only an honest, independent-minded, and a brave Chinese who has a sense of responsibility to help those people without a voice, and those who are suffering. To defend him is not a future political investment, but a defense of the conscience of all human beings. If a country like the United States, founded on principles of freedom and human rights, will not even help him, then this leads many to question whether the U.S. has given up on human rights. Just three days after Wei met with an American official, he was detained in 1994. Today he has been sentenced to fourteen years in prison. What will the U.S. do now for my brother? The United States is the most powerful democratic country in the world. The American government has a strong influence on many important events such as Bosnia and Mideast peace. If the U.S. can make a strong, effective response to China, it can also help to stop this terrible injustice. It is not only a question of saving Wei Jingsheng, it is also a question of defending thousands of dissidents in China, and fundamental rights of freedom of expression of over one billion Chinese people. It is in the long-term interests of the U.S. and world peace.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the leadership which our colleague from New Jersey, Chris Smith, the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. He has played a key role in the effort to resolve the future of the au pair program. I also want to recognize the chairman of the full Committee on International Relations, Congressman Ben Gilman of New York, and our the ranking Democratic member of the committee, Congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana. They have also played a critical role in dealing with this issue. The au pair program has been in a state of uncertainty for a number of years, and it has been extended temporarily several times. The authorization for the operation of this program expired on September 30 of this year, and the legislation which we approved in this House to extend the program has not yet passed both houses of the Congress. For this reason, it is important that we act to resolve, at least temporarily again, this uncertainty for a specified period of time. Our legislation today simply extends the program for another 2 years--until September 30, 1997--without resolving the question of its ultimate fate or ultimate future structure and existence. The legislation, however, does require a report from USIA, which should provide a basis for us to take more permanent action in 2 years. This legislation does make improvements, and I welcome those changes. In the past the au pair program has been limited to young people from European countries. This legislation broadens the program to include other countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This expansion will create additional problems for those who administer the program, but the extension of the program to all countries is a positive step. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support international educational exchange programs, including this one for au pairs. As the founder of the California State Universities' study abroad program, I have long supported and promoted efforts to encourage young women and men to travel and learn about other countries, other languages, and other cultures. The au pair program provides an important opportunity for young people from other countries to experience American culture firsthand. These are young people who generally come from families which do not have the resources to permit them to travel independently or to study at an American university. It is important that they have this personal experience of our country. It is extremely important, however, that the USIA and those who administer this program understand that this is an educational program--its purpose is to give young people experience with our country and its culture. Families who provide a home and food for foreign young people while they are here reasonably expect some assistance with household tasks. But this is not a program to circumvent our Nation's labor and immigration laws relating to employment in the United States by foreign citizens. This is not a program to provide free child care for upper-middle class Americans. It is not a program to get around our Nation's labor laws. Those laws have been written for specific policy objectives, and the au pair program must be consistent with our labor laws. It is extremely important that the international educational exchange component of this program be recognized and acknowledged as being central to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the conference report on the bill making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies has been discussed at some length by a number of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. I share their serious concerns with the deficiencies of this legislation that have been so eloquently expressed by my friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, and by my friend and colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Mollohan. I want to focus my remarks on the serious defects of this bill with regard to the international obligations of the United States. The conference report that we are considering reduces by one-half our Nation's contributions to international peacekeeping activities. Mr. Speaker, this is an incredibly short-sighted reduction. BY supporting such peacekeeping activities under the auspices of the United Nations, we are encouraging our involvement and participation in activities to keep the peace in a number of areas around the world. By fostering international peacekeeping, we are encouraging the participation of other nations and the participation of the military forces of other countries in activities that encourage peace and stability in many regions of the world. We have supported and fostered such efforts in a number of areas around the world, areas which are important to the United States--Cyprus, the Sinai, Cambodia--to name only a few. Our contribution to such peacekeeping efforts is an indication of our commitment to international action to maintain stability and encourage respect for appropriate international behavior. Second, this conference report reduces by almost one quarter, 24 percent, U.S. contributions to international organizations, which fund the U.S. share of activities in the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and other such international organizations. These are not good will donations to these organizations; these are international treaty obligations of the United States. These organizations support important national security and foreign policy interests--international sanctions against rogue regimes such as Iran, Libya, and Iraq; efforts to reduce nuclear proliferation and other weapons of mass destruction; common international efforts to maintain Middle East peace and security, including the struggle to maintain the borders of Israel and Kuwait; the promotion of an open international trade framework; the control of diseases, such as the Ebola virus; and the promotion of human rights. These short-sighted reductions in funding in this legislation impede the ability of the United States to carry out these vital national security and foreign policy objectives. Furthermore, the draconian cuts in funds severely hamper the State Department's ability to press for much-needed reforms at the United Nations and at other international organizations. Under strong pressure from many of us here in this body, the administration--under both Democratic and Republican leadership-- has made considerable progress in pressuring for managerial, administrative, and budgetary reform. The unilateral reduction of our contributions seriously undermines our ability to continue to press for these needed reforms. For half a century--since the end of World War II--the United States has spent enormous sums of money for our military forces to protect our national security and to further our international objectives. We pursued farsighted policies that had broad bipartisan support. Unfortunately, now that the cold war is over, we have not been willing to continue even the relatively modest spending that is required to protect these more cost-effective security and foreign policy interests. This is extraordinarily imprudent. This ought to be changed, and changing this legislation is the place to begin. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the adoption of this legislation before us today. We can--and we should--do better.