Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend my colleague, friend, and neighbor, the Honorable Norman Mineta. As an ex-officio member of each of the six transportation subcommittees, chairman of Public Works and Transportation Committee, and currently, the ranking Democrat of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Congressman Mineta championed highway safety standards for the Nation, and particularly, the entire San Francisco Bay Area, where his district is located. Throughout his career, spanning more than two decades, Mr. Mineta has made a great contribution toward maintaining and improving the infrastructure of this country, to the U.S. Congress and the people of California. His wisdom, knowledge, and dedication will truly be missed by those who were privileged to serve with him and by those whom he has served with distinction. Concern for human rights and and dignity is a personal issue for Norman Mineta. As a child, Mineta and his family, along with 120,000 Japanese-Americans, were sent by the United States Government to live in internment camps during World War II. One of the highlights of Congressman Mineta's career was realized when the 100th Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, granting redress and a formal apology by the United States Government to the 60,000 surviving Japanese- Americans who suffered injustices by the Government of their own country during World War II. I salute Congressman Mineta for his distinguished service in the U.S. Congress and for his unyielding dedication to his constituents. I truly wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call to the attention of my colleagues the silencing of another powerful Russian voice: that of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, viewed by many as the national conscience of Russia. My colleagues may have heard the report by Anne Garrells yesterday morning on National Public Radio. The Nobel Laureate and world-renowned author was given a hero's welcome last year after his return to Russia from long years of exile in the United States. Since then he has shared with Russian television audiences his strong views on the course of Russia's post-cold war development, often voicing sharp criticism of government actions. ORT, the largest Russian television network and the only channel to reach the entire area of Russia and the former Soviet Union, recently announced that it had dropped Solzhenitsyn from its fall lineup. ORT claims it canceled Solzhenitsyn's show due to low ratings, but Solzhenitsyn's supporters believe it is actually a case of censorship. They assert that with the approach of parliamentary elections in December, the Russian Government wanted an end to the weekly drubbing it has been receiving from Solzhenitsyn. The reasons for the show's cancellation may be debatable, but there is a pattern of recurring government interference with independent media and government efforts to intimidate the media in general that make the cancellation worrisome. In House Concurrent Resolution 95, legislation introduced by Representative Gilman and myself, we draw attention to several incidents that raise serious questions about freedom of the press in Russia, including: The Russian Prosecutor General's filing of criminal charges against a satirical show that pokes fun at public figures, the Russian Government's failure to solve the murders of television journalist Vladimir Listeyev and reporter Dmitri Kholodov, and the possible involvement of Presidential security forces in the assault on the offices of the MOST Group, which owns independent television station NTV. The development of a democratic Russia is very much in our national interest, and nothing is more crucial to the maintenance of a pluralistic society than a free and unfettered press. I am deeply concerned that the Russian Government may be trying to restrict, through tactics of censorship and intimidation, including bodily harm, the right of individual journalists to report objectively on domestic and foreign news and the right of private entrepreneurs to establish, operate, and maintain independent media outlets. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the legislative branch and officials in the executive branch to raise the United States commitment to freedom of the press with Russian Government leaders at every opportunity.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in opposing those who continue to scapegoat the poor for our Nation's ills, and now seek to kill the Legal Services Corporation which is often the only source of legal aid for those least able to pay or navigate their way through our system of justice. I wish to draw my colleagues attention to an honest, take-no-prisoners editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle which clearly demonstrates how utterly repugnant these proposals are to eliminate Federal funding for legal aid. I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting this important and vital guarantor of justice in America. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 13, 1995] Denying the Poor Equal Access to the Law A repugnant attack on the poor gets a hearing on the floor of the U.S. Senate tomorrow with the scheduled vote on a bill that would slash funds for legal aid and eliminate the 30- year-old Legal Services Corporation. The 323 shoestring community legal agencies funded by the corporation often provide the only recourse for members of the nation's underclass who are dealing with domestic violence emergencies, tenant problems, nursing home complaints, discrimination and wage disputes and myriad other plights requiring legal expertise. But in the name of balancing the budget, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed a bill that would cut already-insufficient $400 million funding by about half, abolish the corporation and make right-wing fundamentalists happy by imposing restrictions on the kinds of cases, such as divorce, that can be represented. A similar and equally harmful and distasteful measure by Representative George Gekas, R-Pa., is making its way through the House. The issue is ``whether the government should be involved in breaking up families,'' was the know-nothing reaction of a spokesman for presidential hopeful Senator Phil Gramm when asked about the Texas Republican's support of the legal aid bills. Typically, however, local legal aid lawyers working with limited funds must give priority to martial cases that involve spousal battering. They must often refer less urgent cases to others. California received $47.2 million this year to help the poor with civil legal matters, far from enough to provide legal aid to all the indigent, not least of all poverty- stricken elderly, who need such help. Proposed cuts for the state could total $19 million. Besides trying to use government-funded legal aid as a symbol of misplaced moral values, conservatives charge that the Legal Services Corporation spends too much time on high- profit class action suits. To the contrary, most of the work of these dedicated, underpaid legal aid lawyers is spent on the gritty, routine case work involving families and housing , the disabled, patient rights, consumer and utility issues and wage issues. The legal and lawyers also help the poor wade through bureaucratic labyrinths that often make it difficult to collect the few federal benefits to which they are entitled. The relatively small federal outlay in legal aid funds has meant the difference between justice and injustice for many poor Americans. It is an investment that must continue to be honored if the country is not to abrogate its historic promise of equal access to the legal system.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in condemning the meanspirited and utterly sexist provision in the Labor- HHS appropriations bill which would begin to reverse decades of progress in the march to gender equality in our Nation. The current majority's recent attack on title IX, the landmark law that opened the door to women's participation in school sports, cannot go uncriticized even though it was slipped into the debate just before this August recess. I draw my colleagues' attention to the following excellent and pointed, August 7, 1995, editorial by the San Francisco Chronicle, entitled ``Equal Opportunity On The Playing Fields,'' which, unfortunately, could not be entered into the Record before the recess. I offer that editorial now, and urge my colleagues to reconsider the Congress' current path which would reverse hard-won gains in equal opportunity for female athletes. Equal Opportunity on the Playing Fields Tucked in the ugly social spending cuts package approved by the House of Representatives last week is the first salvo in a war against Title IX, the landmark 1972 law that opened a long-closed door to young women who had been denied participation in school sports. The meanspirited appropriations measure includes restrictions on Medicaid abortions, funding cuts for Head Start, prohibitions on lobbying by nonprofit groups, limits on the authority of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration and the National Labor Relations Board and termination of subsides that help the poor pay their utility bills. By a voice vote, the House added an amendment calling for a review of Title IX, which bars sex discrimination by schools and colleges receiving federal funds and requires that both sexes have an equal opportunity to participate in school sports. The law has come under fire from some newly powerful House conservatives who are sympathetic to coaches who say they are forced to cut back on men's programs in order to comply with the law. This transparent effort at scapegoating women's sports and enfeebling gender equity in college athletics should be squelched before it gets lost in the maze of frenetic congressional activity. Millions of American women can attest to the difference the '70s law has made in their lives. Contrast the existence of pre-Title IX mothers left out of organized sports in their high school and college years to their daughters, whose lives were immeasurably changed and enriched because they were offered more athletic opportunities. The same development of confidence, fitness, perseverance and social skills that boys enjoyed for so many decades through sports programs was finally accessible--even if on a much smaller scale--to girls. In addition, like boys who play sports, girls who play sports are more likely to graduate from high school. Title IX clearly has opened doors. In the years since the gender equity law was enacted, women's participation in college athletics has ballooned. Participation in young women's high school and college competitive sports has increased from about 300,000 to more than 2 million. But even after 23 years, equity is far from having been achieved. Compared with men, women in Division 1--big-time sports colleges--receive less than one-third of athletic scholarship dollars, one-sixth of recruitment dollars and one-fifth of overall athletic budgets, even though they represent more than half of the student body. Too many important rights are being surrendered in the name of congressional vigor. Hard-won equal opportunity for female athletes should not be one of them.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week our Government barred the entry into the United States of Musa Mohammed Abu Marzuq, a senior official of the Islamic Palestinian extremist terrorist organization, Hamas. Abu Marzuq is chief of Hamas' political bureau where he is responsible for coordinating international aspects of Hamas' terrorist activities, and in particular, fund raising efforts and the training of Hamas' operatives--activities that are critical to Hamas' vicious terrorist campaign against Israel, against those who support Israel, and against Palestinians who do not follow Hamas' violent line. Hamas has viciously opposed the efforts of the PLO to work with Israel in bringing peace and ending violence. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the action of our Department of State in barring the entry into our country of Abu Marzuq. I raised this issue earlier this week in a hearing of the International Relations Committee and repeated my concern to the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs that our Government must move decisively against all those individuals who are involved in terrorist activities of any kind. We have no obligation to admit such individuals who support, encourage, and engage in terrorism. Furthermore, I urge the administration and the courts to comply with the request by the Government of Israel for the extradition to Israel of Abu Marzuq. The Israeli Government has evidence of the involvement of this Hamas leader in terrorist activities, and it would be most appropriate that he be returned to Israel to stand trial in an Israeli court of justice to determine his guilt or innocence of these heinous crimes. Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute and unmitigated outrage that the vicious, unprincipled leaders of Hamas have threatened President Clinton and the United States if the extradition of Abu Marzuq is carried out. In a letter published in an Arab-language newspaper in Israel earlier this week, Hamas published an open letter to President Clinton with intolerable and offensive threats: ``If your government decides to hand Abu Marzuq to the Israeli authorities, we would consider this a hostile act against all Arabs and Muslims. You will bear the consequences of such an act.'' The letter threatened that the extradition would unleash ``a wave of anger and retaliation throughout the Arab and Islamic world.'' A leader of another militant group, Islamic Jihad, said the United States would ``pay dearly'' for detaining or extraditing Abu Marzuq. The United States must never, under any circumstances, yield to such blatant, mind-boggling terrorist threats. Our foreign policy must be based on principled decisions and respect for the rule of law. Our actions at home and abroad must never be influenced by timidity or trepidation in the face of blatant threats by terrorist thugs. To yield to such treats will only encourage every other international terrorist group to issue an carry out such threats. Our policy must always be to stand up against intimidation. Mr. Speaker, the detention of Abu Marzuq only serves to highlight the continuing danger of international terrorists. The Oklahoma City bombing a few months ago highlighted the danger we face from domestic terrorists and anti-Government militias, but we must not let that tragedy and the necessity of dealing with terrorism at home obscure the need to deal with international terrorism. I urge my colleagues to move quickly to bring to the floor of the House the Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act, which has been developed with the cooperation and full support of the Department of Justice. If that legislation had been enacted, dealing with the detention of Abu Marzuq and extraditing him to Israel would probably be an easier task. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no reason for further delay. We have dealt with all kinds of issues in the House of Representatives in recent days, but none have the urgency and immediate importance of taking action to improve the ability of our law enforcement officials to deal with international terrorism. I urge that the Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act be brought to the floor and that we move quickly to improve our ability to deal decisively with the scourge of terrorism, both within our borders and beyond.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I was outraged, appalled, and dismayed--but unfortunately not surprised--by the latest case of blatant anti- Semitism in Indonesia. The facts of the case are appalling. The world archery championships are to be held in Jakarta, Indonesia, on August 1-6 of this year. The Indonesian officials organizing the event refused to permit the team representing Israel to participate under the name of the country of Israel and under the Israeli flag. The Indonesian organizing officials proposed that the Israeli archery team be designated group A, that it march at the opening and closing ceremonies under the flag of the International Archery Federation [FITA], and, if an Israeli archer wins a medal, the Indonesian officials want the fanfare of the FITA to be played instead of the national anthem of Israel. Mr. Speaker, this request from Indonesian officials is both ludicrous and outrageous. Israel is a sovereign nation, a member of the United Nations, and is recognized by most countries. Indonesia, as a matter of policy, does not have diplomatic relations with Israel, and that, I am certain, is a clear reflection of the reason these Indonesian officials have taken such an offensive racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel position. Unfortunately, this is not the first instance of such intolerance. When the film ``Shindler's List'' was produced a few years ago by Stephen Spielberg, Indonesia was one of the few countries on the face of the Earth which refused to permit the movie to be shown. I intervened with the Indonesian Ambassador and I am delighted to report that eventually the movie was screened in Indonesia. A year or so ago, I also raised with the Indonesian Ambassador and discussed in a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee the publication in Indonesia's leading English-language newspaper, the Indonesia Times, an article by Prof. Agha Hamid, which was one of the most vicious anti-Semitic diatribes that I have seen, and I have seen a great deal of vicious anti-Semitism. Just one sample: ``Actually the Jewish religion is not a religion at all. It is infact [sic.] a bloody, sadistic and obscene code devised by Zionist-Talmudist sages.'' And further: ``The Jewish sages were not exclusively interested in homicide. Sexuality, particularly in far lesser conventional modes, is a strong rival for their attention.'' The Indonesian Government at that time knew of my outrage over the publication of such disgusting trash. Mr. Speaker, in light of this latest intolerable action by Indonesian officials organizing the world archery competition against the citizens of a sovereign, independent country, I have introduced a resolution which puts the Congress on record as opposing the effort to deny recognition to the State of Israel and its citizens and reaffirming the Congress' strong opposition to racism and anti-Semitism. This resolution calls upon the Indonesian Government to act to end this outrageous anti-Israeli action. I invite my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this resolution. The text of my resolution is as follows: House Concurrent Resolution Mr. Lantos submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations. A resolution condemning the refusal of the Indonesian officials organizing the World Archery Championships in Jakarta, Indonesia, in August 1995 to permit a team from Israel to participate in the competition under the name of Israel and under the flag of Israel, and urging the government of Indonesia to join in condemning this manifestation of racism and anti-Semitism. Whereas the Congress has repeatedly expressed its abhorrence of racism and anti-Semitism in any form; Whereas the constitution of the International Archery Federation (FITA) bars discrimination against any country, association or person on grounds of race, religion or politics; Whereas Indonesian officials organizing the World Archery Championships in Jakarta, Indonesia, in August 1995 have refused to permit a term representing Israel to participate in the competition unless the team agrees to conceal its national identity and not compete under the flag of Israel; and Whereas officials of the International Archery Federation (FITA) have confirmed that Indonesian officials have refused to permit an Israeli team to participate under its country's name and with its country's flag in the World Archery Championships; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress: (1) Condemns the Indonesian offices organizing the World Archery Championships in Jakarta, Indonesia, for this refusal to permit a team representing Israel to participate in this international competition under the name and flag of their country; (2) Calls upon the Government of Indonesia to repudiate publicly the position that has been taken by those Indonesian officials organizing the World Archery Championships in Jakarta regarding the participation of a team representing Israel in the competition and to urge the inclusion of the team of Israel under the name of Israel and under the flag of Israel; (3) Condemns all manifestations of racism and anti-Semitism wherever they may appear in Indonesia and elsewhere throughout the world; and (4) Directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate to convey a copy of this resolution to the President of Indonesia and to the President of the International Archery Federation (FITA).

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LANTOS. I thank my good friend the distinguished leader for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, what is at stake now is something far more important than MFN for China. What is at stake is the integrity of the workings of this House. Many of us voted for the earlier resolution under the assumption, which was made very clear to us, that we will have an opportunity to vote up or down on MFN for China. Many of us spoke on the previous resolution, indicating our willingness to support the rhetoric of that resolution but demanding the opportunity of expressing ourselves vis-a- vis China in a way that China understands. I earnestly plead with my colleagues under present circumstances to vote against the motion to table. We are not dealing not just with the China issue. We are now dealing with the integrity of the procedures of this House. Many of us came in here seeing that the previous resolution was verbiage, very little teeth in it, practically none. That is why we got a practically unanimous vote. The feeling of the House is divided on MFN for China, and we should have an opportunity to debate most- favored-nation treatment for China as we have had that opportunity every single year since I have served in this body. There is no reason why the 104th Congress will decline a vote on most-favored-nation treatment for China. It will go ahead, anyway, even if we win, because the President will veto our vote and we will not have the numbers to override it. But it goes to the integrity of our procedures. I am making a sincere plea on both sides to reject the motion to table so we can have an up-or-down vote on MFN for China.

Mr. LANTOS. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that those of us who are opposed to tabling this motion be allocated half the time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, is there any rule of the House which mandates that a portion of the time be allocated to opponents of a proposed legislation if both the majority and the minority are on one side?

Mr. LANTOS. May I continue my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. LANTOS. If I may continue my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, I believe House rules do. We have had precedent for that when there was both on the majority and minority side the determination to grant Most Favored Nation treatment to Romania. I objected on parliamentary grounds, and the Speaker at that time granted me part of the time to express the views of those who are opposed to the tabling motion.

Mr. LANTOS. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, are both sides in control of the time in favor of tabling this motion?

Mr. LANTOS. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this House is united in wanting to have good relations with China. This House is united in recognizing how important China is. But this House is divided in deciding how we can see to it that China's abominable human rights policy, China's continued sale of weapons of mass destruction to highly questionable countries, and China's one- sided trade policy with the United States come to an end. There is no dispute that China has one of the worst human rights records on the face of this planet. Since human rights were ``de- linked'' from the issue of giving them most-favored-nation treatment 1 year ago, human rights conditions in China have significantly deteriorated. Thousands of Chinese citizens are imprisoned in forced labor camps for nonviolent opposition to the regime. The repression of Tibet continues unabated. The Chinese Government enforces sickening and draconian birth control policies of forced sterilization and forced abortions. This bill has some redeeming features. It condemns these human rights violations, but unfortunately it does not have teeth. It does not do anything but admonish the Chinese. To give meaning to our condemnation, we have to give our action real teeth. The only way to make this condemnation meaningful is to deny MFN to the Chinese. If you vote for this bill, as I will, you should also vote for legislation to deny MFN to China. Only by taking strong and effective action do totalitarian governments change their policies. Economic sanctions against South Africa were the key element in bringing about the end of apartheid. We were urged by the previous administration not to enact sanctions, to engage the South Africans in constructive dialog. But it was only after we put sanctions on South Africa that the sickening practice of apartheid ended. We got the attention of the Chinese when this House voted for my resolution calling for the Olympic games not be held in Beijing. We got the attention of the Chinese when this House voted for my resolution calling for our Government to issue a visa to President Li of Taiwan. China is now illegally holding an American citizen, Harry Wu, who was entrapped by the Chinese in going there. They gave him the visa, and when he arrived they arrested him. China is selling missile technology. China has a trade surplus of over $30 billion with the United States. There are plenty of other sources of textiles and Barbie dolls and Christmas tree lights. India and lots of other developing countries would like to sell those things to us, but the Chinese have a $30 billion-plus trade surplus with us. I commend the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and all of my colleagues with whom I had the pleasure of working for improving human rights in China for this legislation. but we must not approve this legislation believing that this is China policy. This is a part of China policy. It lays out the problems with China. It provides no effective mechanism of enforcement. Mr. Speaker, just as the apartheid Government of South Africa laughed at us until we provided economic sanctions, so the rulers in Beijing are capable of taking rhetoric from this body. What they are unwilling to take, and what we should force them to take, is economic sanctions. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, but I also urge my colleagues to vote for House Joint Resolution 96 to deny most-favored- nation treatment to China.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call the attention of my colleagues to an incident that took place in Russia in the last few days--an incident that raises serious questions about freedom of the press and also about the future of democracy in Russia. NTV, the only major independent television network in Russia, broadcasts a political satire program in which puppets are easily recognizable caricatures of leading Russian political figures. The program satirizes public figures. The program--called ``Kukly'' (``Puppets'')--is similar to programs that are broadcast in Britain, France, Hungary, and a number of other countries. After a recent show, however, the Russian Prosecutor General brought criminal charges against the producers of the show on the grounds that the country's leading public figures were victims of ``a conscious and public humiliation of their honor and dignity, expressed in an indecent way.'' If that standard were observed in the United States, David Letterman, Jay Leno, a host of radio talk show hosts, and any other number of television and movie producers would have been slapped into prison long ago. In a democracy, one of the consequences of a free press and freedom of expression is that public figures are subject to public scrutiny by both responsible and irresponsible media. It is not pleasant to be inaccurately or derisively treated by the media, but I dare say that most of my colleagues have some experience in this regard. The action of the Prosecutor General in Moscow, however, raises the most serious and the most fundamental questions about democracy in Russia and about future developments there. Initiating criminal proceedings against the producers of a political satire puppet program may be the source of witty headlines in the press--the Washington Post headlined its story yesterday ``Satirists Skewer Russian `Puppet' Government''--but the matter is extremely serious. The prosecution of these criminal charges, however, is suspect on its face. Why is the Prosecutor General focusing his attention on supposedly criminal actions on a political satire television program? There are far more serious crimes--real crimes--which do not seem to attract the attention of the prosecutor. The suspicious murder of the popular Russian television journalist Vladimir Listeyev of Ostankino TV remains unsolved after nearly a year. Furthermore, the prosecutor and law enforcement officials still has not found the murderers of journalist Dmitri Kholodov of Komsomolskahya Pravda, who was killed by a package bomb while he was in the final stages of an investigation into corruption in the military. There are real issues of unsolved crimes--real crimes--which the Prosecutor General could deal with. Why undertake proceedings against the producers of a television program? The answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is that this criminal proceeding is only a small part of a much larger effort to intimidate the media and to bring the independent television and other media into line, particularly since parliamentary elections in Russia are scheduled for this December and Presidential elections are to follow 6 months later. The independent television station NTV, which is being charged for its irreverent puppet-treatment of the Russian leaders, has also been particularly hard-hitting in its coverage of the government's military actions in Chechnya. The station recently broadcast an interview with the leader of the group of Chechen guerrillas who held more than a thousand Russians hostage in southern Russia last month. Criminal charges are also pending against NTV for broadcasting that interview. The effort of government agencies to intimidate the media in Russia is a serious challenge to efforts to institutionalize democracy. Freedom of the press and the right of free expression are the most fundamental of the rights of any democratic society. Freedom of speech is absolutely essential if democracy is to exist, and without it, true democracy cannot exist. Russia does not have a tradition of an independent and free and open media; therefore, this effort at intimidation is intended as a warning to journalists throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we in the Congress of the United States affirm our concern and interest in freedom of expression and an unfettered independent media in Russia. With our distinguished colleague, the chairman of the International Relations Committee, Congressman Ben Gilman of New York, I am today introducing legislation that expresses the strong concern of the Congress that freedom of expression and freedom of the press be protected and guaranteed in Russia. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues in the Congress to join us in cosponsoring this important affirmation of our concern for freedom of expression in Russia. Our Nation has a strong interest in the positive and democratic development of Russia, and freedom of the press is essential to that process. There should be no question about our commitment to that vital principle. The text of our resolution is as follows: House Concurrent Resolution 84 A resolution expressing the sense of the Congress concerning freedom of the press in Russia. Whereas the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union has brought new and unique opportunities for democratic political change and market-oriented economic reform in Russia; Whereas, the commitment to the spirit of these democratic reforms and to the full implementation of these reforms has been tentative and inconclusive thus far; Whereas one of the fundamental tenets of democracy and one of the most important means of assuring the continuation of democratic government is an independent and free press, which can exist only in an environment that is free of state control of the media and the absence of any form of state censorship or official coercion of any kind and is protected by the rule of law; Whereas freedom of the press and freedom of expression in Russia today is being threatened by some forces within the Russian government, particularly since the dramatic reporting of the war in Chechnya; Whereas there have been reports in the Russian press, including the official press, of efforts to establish a government committee that would impose censorship on the press in Russia; Whereas there have been persistent reports regarding the possible issuance of government decrees that would undermine or compromise the independence of privately-owned television stations and other media enterprises which have provided factual reporting on the war in Chechnya or which have editorialized against Russian military action in Chechnya; Whereas there has been recent evidence of government involvement in actions against independent television outlets and those who use or finance such businesses, including a widely-reported assault on the office of the Most Group, which owns NTV and other media outlets, and, furthermore, allegations of the involvement of presidential security forces in that assault have never been denied; Whereas the latest effort to intimidate the press involves the launching of a criminal investigation by the Prosecutor General against the largest private television network, NTV, and threatening action against the producers of a political satire program in which puppets are used to caricature prominent Russian officials and personalities; Whereas the suspicious murder of popular television journalist Vladimir Listeyev of Ostankino TV remains unsolved after nearly one year; Whereas the assassination of journalist Dmitri Kholodov of Komsomolskaya Pravda, who was killed by a package bomb while he was in the final stages of an investigation into corruption in the military, also remains unsolved; Whereas journalists in Russia, including both foreign and domestic journalists, have faced harassment, risked arrest, had equipment confiscated, been beaten and even murdered as a result of their efforts to report objectively regarding events in Chechnya; and Whereas a free and independent information media is essential to the conduct of free, open, fair and democratic elections which are scheduled later this year in Russia; now therefore be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that (1) A free press is vital to the development and consolidation of democracy in Russia; (2) Freedom of the press and freedom of expression must be safeguarded against those forces who would suppress or censor these essential fundamental democratic rights; (3) To protect freedom of the press and freedom of expression, the right and opportunity of independent entrepreneurs to establish, operate, and maintain independent media outlets must be protected and safeguarded; (4) Russian government leaders, including the President, the Prime Minister, and Members of the Russian Duma, should fully support freedom of the press and the right of free expression in Russia; and (5) The President and the Secretary of State are requested to convey to appropriate Russian government officials, including the President, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, this expression of the views of the Congress.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the outstanding leaders of the American labor movement, as well as a dear friend. Morton Bahr has been extraordinarily influential and effective in fighting to advance the cause of the American worker. For Morty, greater worker empowerment has been a lifelong commitment, a commitment that culminated with this election to the presidency of the Communications Workers of America in an especially demanding period for the communications industry, as well as organized labor. Morty has made worker training and education programs a top priority in his struggle for a better educated and more productive workforce. Moreoever, he has sought to bridge the gap between management and workers by bring the workers into the decisionmaking arena, contributing, in this way, to the development of a more responsible and efficient labor force. The globalization of the economy poses a unique challenge to the American economy in general and the American worker in particular. Morty, through his membership in the Executive Committee of the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone International, has managed to represent the interests of the American workers and secure their competitiveness in the world market. Morty, in addition to being the champion of the C.W.A., has made invaluable contributions to many worthwhile causes. As one of the founders and a cochairman of the ``Jobs with Justice'' community-labor action coalition group, as vice chairman of the United Way Board of Governors and also as an executive committee member of the Democratic National Committee, he has offered service to the economic and political life of the community as a whole. People have often referred to Morty as one of the most influential leaders in the American labor movement, a designation which is fully accurate and well deserved. I rise today to honor Morty's many wonderful accomplishments and ask my colleagues to join me in extending our heartfelt appreciation for his leadership.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in remembering the victims of Stalin's mass murder of Polish officers in the Katyn Forest in Russia on June 4, 1940. That vicious and horrible slaughter was one of the great atrocities of World War II. As a result of the partition of Poland by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union on the basis of the infamous Hitler-Stalin pact, the Soviet Union occupied eastern Poland. Following that imposition of Soviet control, which was every bit as brutal as the Nazi occupation of western Poland, the Soviet authorities brutally murdered some 15,000 Polish military officers and other Polish citizens. After the Soviets carried out this brutal massacre, they falsely blamed the Nazis for this inhuman act. Mr. Speaker, this month marks the 55th anniversary of the Katyn Massacre. In memory of the victims of this horrible act, as a tribute to the survivors and their families, and as a message of reconciliation for the future, I wish to place in the Record the following message from the Federation of the Katyn Families: ``A Message to the World From the Katyn Families''--A Statement Regarding the Katyn Massacre Many call it the ``Golgotha of the East'': Katyn Forest and other sites in Russia where 15,000 captured Polish citizens and officers were massacred by Soviet paramilitary police during World War II. Now a sanctuary is being built in Katyn: as a remembrance and warning that it must not happen again, and as a symbol of reconciliation between Poland and Russia. Monsignor Zdzislaw Peszkowski, one of the fewer than 150 surviving prisoners of the massacre, and chief proponent of the sanctuary, states that the act of forgiveness offered by the Katyn Families will provide a starting point for future positive relations between Poland and Russia. The massacre of the leading members of the Polish intelligentsia--including physicians, judges, scholars, policemen, and military officers--was intended by Josef Stalin to destroy resistance in Poland and annihilate the nation. During the war, Poland was invaded by both German and Soviet troops. The prisoners were each killed by a single bullet to the back of the head. With their hands tied behind their backs with barbed wire or heavy cord, they were thrown into mass graves. The victims have never been exhumed or buried. After the systematic murders of these 15,000 men, some 2 million Polish citizens, including victims' families, were evicted from their homes and crowded into animal boxcars and sent inland to serve as slaves in Russia. Many died on the trains and their bodies were thrown from the moving trains. In 1993, Boris Yeltsin admitted that responsibility for the massacre lay with the Soviet Union, while previously it had been attributed to the German army. The Federation of the Katyn Families pleads with members of all nations to remember these atrocities and prevent such a thing from happening again. They proclaim that evil is overcome by the power of love and this love leads to victory and new life. They turn to the heirs of their persecutors and say: ``We forgive.'' Especially to the youth, they say: ``You are our hope. We caution you and beg: Through memory of past crimes, do not try to solve problems by force. May your generation renew the face of the earth. . . . We extend our hand in reconciliation to you, Brothers of the East. May our pain, memory, and forgiveness strengthen us all on the road to the peace desired by the entire human family.''

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Barbara Bladen, who retired from the San Mateo Times on December 11, 1994, after 39 years as an exemplary critic and writer. Her instinct throughout the years has led to a long and distinguished career in the San Francisco Bay area. In reading her reviews I have always admired her insight and eloquence. She has devoted the past 39 years to opening the door to the world of performing arts to many bay area residents. Barbara, who is well-versed in the performing arts, had planned to make her career as a participant of the arts rather than as critic of them. She is schooled in tap, ballet, classical and jazz piano, modeling, and acting. She had planned to study acting in New York when she married the late painter-sculptor Ronald Bladen. After their move to San Carlos, she began acting locally with the Hillbarn Theater. Shortly thereafter, she began her long and distinguished career with the San Mateo Times. She started off as the newspaper's librarian and worked her way up to arts critic, for which she was paid $7.50 for each review. From there she moved into the women's department, and began writing a daily ``Lively Arts'' column. As a daily columnist, Barbara Bladen found her niche reviewing theater, opera, dance, music, and film. Although it was difficult in the beginning, she continued to strive on and overcome all hurdles to become a revered critic. Known as one to put her interviewees at ease, Barbara was successful in capturing many celebrity interviews. She made use of her theatrical background interviewing Bette Davis, Clark Gable, Judy Garland, Jimmy Stewart, Omar Shariff, Peter O'Toole, Paul Newman, Lauren Bascall, Sophia Lauren, Lucille Ball, Jody Foster, and Kevin Costner to name a few. Not only did she dress and act accordingly for each star--in full skirts and flamboyant jewelry with a southern twang for country stars, in black leather and raw language for rock stars--she knew exactly what to ask and how to ask it. Barbara traveled extensively throughout her career, and reviewed the many different works she saw and heard from all over the world. She has given the bay area community a lifetime of her performing arts expertise. Her forth-right manner and her charismatic style has been a great contribution to the arts arena in the bay area, and to the entire community. Mr. Speaker, Barbara Bladen's 39 years of dedication and commitment to sharing new works and discovering new talents has enlightened the entire San Francisco Bay area. On this day, when we celebrate her retirement, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Barbara Bladen for her accomplishments and outstanding career.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for the amendment proposed by my distinguished friend from Florida, Mr. Hastings. His reasonable amendment calls for restoration of funding for the development fund for Africa to the levels allocated for this program in the past. I welcome this amendment by my distinguished colleague, and I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of his fair and sensible proposal. Development assistance to Africa now is a preventive medicine against future more grave problems, such as those that have plagued Somalia and Rwanda in recent years. The peoples of Africa are among the most vulnerable people on earth, the peoples most in need of our help anywhere. If we can encourage the advancement of the African countries through programs that focus on economic and political development, this will be important in preventing future problems. Assistance now will help prevent crises in the future. As with medical care, prevention is far more cost-effective than post-crisis intervention. A few million dollars today to assist the countries of Africa deal with their very serious problems can save our Nation billions in the future by preventing or minimizing the development of humanitarian emergencies and totalitarian regimes that could some day once again threaten the peace and stability of that continent. Development assistance is an investment in the future stability of that Continent. We need only remember the horrifying television pictures of the crisis in Rwanda last summer to be reminded of the dreadful cost of instability and crisis in Africa. To the extent that we are able to prevent such humanitarian disasters by fostering economic development and political stability, we are saving resources and contributing to global stability, goals which are clearly in our national interest. [[Page E1255]] The amendment of my friend from Florida to maintain development aid to Africa at current modest levels will be an important impetus to further economic and political development in South Africa. All of us in this Congress were cheered a year ago to see the first free, universal and multi-racial elections take place in South Africa. For years Americans have followed closely and sought to encourage developments in South Africa to bring about an end to apartheid and to encourage democratic development. While all of us have been delighted with the progress that has taken place thus far, the democratic evolution of South Africa depends on economic progress in South Africa. Furthermore, the progress in South Africa could be undermined if development lags and instability increases in the rest of Africa. Furthermore, our assistance is not simply altruistic. Africa is a continent of rapidly growing countries, countries which are potential markets for United States products which our workers and our factories produce. These countries are sources of important goods and products that the American people and the American economy require. It is in our own national interest to foster economic development and progress for the peoples of Africa. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment of Mr. Hastings.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission will soon make its recommendations to the President on which military bases to close. The Commission has received testimony from hundreds of witnesses, has made countless site visits and will consider thousands of pages of data on the effect of base closings on our Nation's military readiness. In making its decisions it will be imperative that the Commission also take into consideration the economic impact of its decisions. In the case of a military facility in my congressional district, the Engineering Field Activity West in San Bruno, or EFA West, the Navy recommended not closing this facility because it was concerned about the economic impact of closure on the community. I believe that the Navy was correct in not slating EFA West for closure and I also believe that closing EFA West will have a disastrous effect on the Pentagon's ability to close bases already slated for closure. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 13, 1995, I presented testimony before the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission on the issue of closing of additional military bases in California. In my testimony, I reminded the Commission that no State has borne the bulk of military base closures as California has and that previous rounds of base closures have turned out to be of tremendous adverse economic impact in California. I also explained to the Commission that EFA West's strategic location best serves military operations and that it is essential to the Pentagon that this installation and its personnel remain in San Bruno. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place my testimony in the Record. Statement of Congressman Tom Lantos, 12th District of California Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission for the opportunity to say a few words on the critical issue of base closures in California and particularly on the future of the Engineering Field Activity West in San Bruno, California, which is located in my Congressional district. Mr. Chairman, I share your deep commitment to a strong and effective national defense. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is appropriate and necessary that we reconsider and evaluate our defense posture. At the same time, we must take into consideration local impacts of these base closure decisions. There will be pain from the realignment of our military facilities, but that pain should be proportionately shared and spread among all regions of our nation and among all of our states. Mr. Chairman, I have very serious concerns about the effect of base closures upon California's economy--particularly since our state has sustained a disproportionate number of job losses stemming from military base closures. As a result of base closures in 1988, 1991, and 1993, California has suffered 69% of the nation's base closure job losses. California will suffer even more job losses as a result of possible base closures projected for this year. Future base closings must take into consideration the effect on the local economy, as well as the effect on our nation's military readiness. I have serious concerns about the substantial impact base closures will have on the families of thousands of California workers who will lose their jobs. I am concerned about the impact that closing more bases will have on California communities. Clearly, the citizens of our state should not be asked to suffer additional hardship and dislocation from additional base closures. I urge you to take into account the devastating effects that previous base closures have already had on California's economy as you consider further base closures for our state. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, I am particularly concerned about the possible closure and realignment of the Navy's Engineering Field Activity, which is located in San Bruno, California. Moving personnel from San Bruno to San Diego or another location will have a disastrous effect on the Pentagon's ability to close bases already slated for closure and will slow the process of closing new bases. As you know, the Engineering Field Activity West (EFA West) is responsible for assisting in the closing of the following facilities that have been previously scheduled to close: Mare Island, Alameda Naval Air Station, Treasure Island, Hunter's Point, Skaggs Island, Moffet Field and Oakland Naval Hospital. It is my understanding that EFA West's base closure activities require continuous contact with local public officials, the public and regulatory agencies in San Francisco. When you consider the monumental task the Pentagon must undertake in closing bases and in working with the affected communities and contractors, it is absolutely clear that the functions of EFA West--which includes important environmental cleanup and property disposition expertise-- require a local presence. This is a key function that cannot be handled effectively or efficiently from hundreds of miles away. Since 1988, the federal government has ordered 70 bases closed--21 of them or almost one-third of the bases are in California. In the effort to close these bases, military officials have run into problems with environmental cleanup and the disposition of property. Problems were inevitable, but they have contributed to substantial time delays and higher cost in closing these bases. When you begin your deliberations on presenting a list of bases for closure to the President, I believe that you must take into account whether it is in the best interest of the military and the taxpayer to close EFA West, when EFA West's central mission is to provide the technical support and expertise in environmental cleanup and the disposition of property necessary for the closing of other bases. Clearly, if Northern California is to be affected by even more base closures in this current round of downsizing, EFA West's strategic Northern California location and its expertise will be even more essential to the military and affected communities in ensuring that base closures will be achieved in the most cost effective and efficient manner. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. EFA West has a dedicated and committed staff of experienced personnel and unique and thorough knowledge in their respective fields. Closing that facility could well deny to the federal government the critical expertise which these dedicated and hardworking employees bring. If EFA West is closed, most of these employees will not be willing to relocate out of the Bay Area--they have strong ties to their communities and to their families, neighbors and friends. If these dedicated workers are lost, the Navy will have to expend considerable time and expense in finding replacement workers and training them in order to continue EFA West's critical mission, which must be maintained to complete base closures elsewhere. Lastly, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, the Secretary of the Navy, John Dalton, testified before you in March of this year, that the Navy had decided not to place EFA West on its list of recommendations for closure because it was concerned about the impact on the local economy. The Navy was absolutely correct in considering economic impact when it decided it was necessary to keep EFA West open. More importantly, however, EFA West's San Bruno location strengthens the military's ability to serve the needs of our region. EFA West's strategic location in San Bruno best serves military operations. It is essential for this installation to remain open to fulfill the responsibilities of base closure and base realignment. When you submit your recommendations for base closure or realignment to the President, I urge you NOT to place EFA West on your base closure list. Thank you very much.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for the amendment proposed by my distinguished friend from New York, Mr. Ackerman. His reasonable amendment calls for reports by the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and budget prior to implementing the provisions of this legislation requiring the consolidation of the functions of the Agency for International Development, the United States Information Agency, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency into the Department of State. The organizational changes that are mandated in this legislation are the most sweeping and comprehensive changes ever proposed to the structure and function of the agencies charged with the conduct of our Nation's foreign policy. None of the Members of the Congress--no matter how long they have been serving in this House or in the other chamber-- have dealt with changes in our foreign policy agencies of this massive a scale and none of us have any sense of what the unforseen consequences may be. Before the Department of Defense scaled back and reorganized our national defense effort, a Bottom-Up review was conducted to assess our Nation's defense requirements in the post-cold war world. But here in the case of the Department of State, we have had only a few general hearings before the International Relations Committee earlier this year on reorganization in general. After the specific provisions of this legislation were drafted, the International Relations Committee held a single hearing on the specific reorganization proposals in this legislation--a hearing, I should add, which was requested by the Democratic members of the Committee to provide the administration with the opportunity to comment on the language in the bill. Mr. Chairman, our Nation is facing unprecedented challenges and threats to the security of our Nation as we face the uncertainly of the post-cold war world. No effort has been made a assess the nature of the perils we face, no effort has been made to assess how our Nation's foreign policy agencies can best address these threats, no effort has been made to determine the impact of this massive restructuring of our foreign policy organizations. In view of the scope of the changes that have been proposed, the amendment of Mr. Ackerman is a reasonable, prudent, and thoughtful effort to consider the impact and evaluate the consequences of consolidation before that irreversible step is taken. In the last few months, Mr. Chairman, this House has not been given to actions that are reasonable, prudent, and thoughtful. In this case, however, we are dealing with the national security of the United States--and caution is only appropriate and reasonable in this case. If this consolidation policy is so all-important and self-evident, why did we not have such proposals from two presidents and four Secretaries of State in the previous administrations. Alexander Haig, George Schultz, Jim Baker, and Larry Eagleburger were obviously guilty of a tremendous dereliction of duty and responsibility for not proposing the wholesale downsizing of our foreign policy apparatus. If there is such urgency for this action, if there is such necessity to take these decisions without essential review, study, and reflection before acting, these previous Secretaries of State should have been able to see and make such recommendations for change. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, no effort has been made to consult and work with the Department of State and the administration to come up with a bipartisan consensus to deal with this consolidation. All of us agree that government can and should be made more efficient and that redundancies should be eliminated. But it is highly inappropriate for the Congress to dictate to the administration the structure of our foreign policy agencies. These are decisions that can and should be made cooperatively in a bipartisan fashion. Mr. Chairman, during the 14\1/2\ years that I have served in this Congress, 12 of those years were with a Republican administration and a Democratically-controlled House of Representatives. During those 12 years, the Democratic members of the Foreign Affairs Committee consulted with our Republican colleagues on the Committee and with the Republican administration to try to achieve a truly bipartisan foreign policy. While there were some areas of disagreement, in the foreign policy realm we were remarkably successful in achieving broad bipartisan agreement. Mr. Chairman, in coming up with the legislation that is now before us, I find that the procedure which we used through the years--of consulting with Republicans and Democrats to come forward with bipartisan proposals--is all gone by the board. I think it is a sad spectacle when the bipartisan foreign policy process of this Nation is torn asunder for cheap partisan political ends. This is not the way to build a superpower and enhance its ability to conduct foreign affairs in the 21st century. What we see in this legislation--in this rush to consolidation with no regard for the consequences and with no consideration of alternatives--is rampant isolationism in action. As I told my colleagues in the markup of this legislation in the International Relations Committee, this is nothing more than pathetic, preposterous partisan posturing. It is cutting to shreds the international capabilities of the one remaining superpower on the face of this planet. It was aptly and accurately described by Dr. Tony Lake, the National Security Advisor to the President, as unilateral disarmament. [[Page E1259]] Mr. Chairman, the amendment of Mr. Ackerman is a rational approach, a thoughtful recommendation in dealing with a process of consolidation that should be given serious and careful consideration before it is implemented. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Ackerman amendment.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my opposition to the amendment proposed by my distinguished friend from Illinois, Mr. Hyde. I have the highest regard for my friend from Illinois. He and I have worked together on many issues, and we agree on many of the most fundamental of those issues. I respect his principled opposition to the War Powers Act, and I have heard him express his disagreement with that legislation on many different occasions over the years as we have served together on the Foreign Relations Committee. Like Congressman Hyde, I have serious reservations about the way in which fundamental questions regarding the decision to commit United States troops abroad have been made over the years. I have had disagreements with Republican presidents and with Democratic presidents, and it will come as no surprise to my colleagues to know that I have not hesitated to express those differences both publicly and privately. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations, and Human Rights in the last Congress, I chaired a number of hearings related to this issue. I have the highest regard for my distinguished friend from Illinois, and I acknowledge that his amendment to repeal the War Powers Act and to establish provisions that provide for Executive-Legislative consultations is a serious and thoughtful effort to deal with the problem of the commitment and involvement of American military forces abroad. At the same time, however, Mr. Hyde's amendment suffers from the same fundamental flaw that undermines the entire bill that is before us today, Mr. Chairman. It is a partisan document that has been imposed by the Republican majority, first in the International Relations Committee and now, I fear, in the House of Representatives. Our foreign policy should be a bipartisan effort that jointly involves the Administration and the Congress, and both of our political parties. Furthermore, it is again being done without thoughtful deliberate consideration and evaluation by the Committee of jurisdiction. There were no hearings in the International Relations Committee on the specific amendment Mr. Hyde is presenting to us here today; There was no effort to solicit the thoughtful views of the Administration about mechanisms to assure consultation between the Administration and the Congress; there was no effort to seek the views of scholars and lawyers and historians about the potential impact of those changes; there was no attempt to develop an amendment that had input from and reflected the concerns of the Democratic members of the International Relations Committee. Regretfully, Mr. Chairman, with Mr. Hyde's amendment we are simply continuing the partisan politicization of our foreign policy at the very time that we should be working together to deal with the serious challenges that our Nation faces in the post-cold war world. There from Illinois, but this amendment should be thoughtfully considered and evaluated, not presented as an amendment to this piece of legislation without proper reflection. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the amendment.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strongest opposition to the amendment proposed by my distinguished friend from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. I have the highest regard for my colleague, Mr. Smith. He and I have worked together on many issues on human rights, and I fully share his abhorrence of coerced abortions that have been carried out in China. I have joined him on many occasions to protest in the strongest terms this egregious violation of human rights. While we have worked closely together on a large number of human rights issues, including coercive population control programs, and I look forward to working with him on a number of other issues in the future, I disagree in the strongest terms with this amendment that he has offered to the bill H.R. 1561. I support the reasoned alternative that has been presented by our distinguished colleague from Maryland, Mrs. Morella, which is the same provision that Mrs. Meyers of Kansas presented during full committee markup, and which was approved by a significant margin during that markup by the entire International Relations Committee. Mr. Chairman, unchecked population growth in developing countries poses a serious and a growing threat to United States national interests throughout the world. It has serious implications for our international policy in areas of trade, security, environment and international migration. To reduce the whole range of U.S. population assistance to the issue of abortion--which is what the amendment of our colleague from New Jersey does--does a great injustice to our pioneering work in the field of population planning, where the United States is a recognized leader and innovator. U.S. population assistance addresses a broad range of critical needs--maternal health; child survival; primary health care, including the prevention of death due to pregnancy-related causes; and the prevention of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases; and contraception. The aim of a family planning organization is not to promote abortion, but quite to the contrary--to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortion, which is the leading cause of maternal mortality. The principal objectives of the Agency for International Development's Population Program are to enable couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children, to improve individual health, and to reduce population growth rates to levels that are consistent with sustainable development. U.S. population assistance is very much in our Nation's interest and--dollar for dollar--probably offers the best return on investment of any of our foreign assistance programs. If effective action is not taken with this decade as today's 1.6 billion children in the developing world under the age of 15 reach their childbearing years, then the Earth's population could nearly quadruple to over 19 billion people by the end of the next century. Such an unchecked explosion in population threatens the international community just as much as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or the increase in international crime, because the alarming rate of population growth underlies virtually every developmental, environmental, and national security problem facing the world today. In Algeria, Brazil, and India--to name but a few examples--we are seeing how growing populations hinder economic development, foster serious environmental degradation, and exacerbate political instability. Experts estimate, Mr. Chairman, that 125 million people in developing countries want to delay or avoid childbirth, but they are not using contraception because they do not have access to means of birth control. Population growth is outstripping the capacity of many nations to make even modest gains in economic development, leading to growing political instability in many countries. At best, this undermines the ability of these countries to be reliable members of the international community or good trading partners of the United States. At worst, it can contribute to massive unrest and violence, as we have witnessed in Rwanda. The impact of exponential population growth is also evident in the mounting signs of depletion and overuse of the world's natural resources. We have only to see what is happening throughout the continent of Africa, in South Asia, and in many areas of South America to realize the serious and, I, fear, irreversible environmental consequences of unchecked population growth. At the International Conference on Population in 1984 in Mexico City, the Officials of the Reagan administration speaking for the United States Government announced a new policy of denying United States foreign aid funds to any foreign nongovernmental organization that provided abortion counseling, referral, or services. Initially called the Mexico City Policy, because it was announced at the U.N. conference in that city, it came to be known as the International Gag Rule. While the ostensible purpose of that policy was to prevent abortion, the evidence has shown that restrictions did nothing to reduce reliance on abortion. In fact, the only impact of the restrictions was to interfere with the delivery of effective family planning services and appropriate medical care. Current law and the explicit text of the Morella/Meyers language make it very clear that no United States funds can be used now or in the future to perform abortions abroad except in cases of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother's life. No United States funds may be used to lobby for or against abortion, and no United States funds will be spent by the U.N. Family Planning Agency in China. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this effort to return us to the era of the International Gag Rule. The counter-productive and self-defeating Mexico City Policy was appropriately and rightfully rejected by the American people, and it was repudiated in the past by the Congress as well. It is necessary for us to reject this effort to turn back the clock. The Smith amendment is contrary to American national interests, and it is a policy that is contrary to the interest of stability and economic development in the Third World. It is time for us to move forward and face realistically and meaningfully the very serious population problems that we face in the world.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Alan Levy, founding editor-in-chief of the Prague Post and the 1995 recipient of the American Society of Journalists and Authors award, ``Author of the Year.'' Mr. Levy's latest book, ``The Wiesenthal File,'' is an extraordinary examination of famed Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal's life work and its enormous continuing relevance in today's world. As an awarding-winning writer in the 1950's and 1960's, Alan Levy began to chart a career that would carry him and his family through some of this century's most turbulent and historically critical moments. Taking his wife and two children to Czechoslovakia in 1967, Levy found himself eyewitness to de-Stalinization and Alexander Dubcek's Prague spring of freedom, the Soviet invasion of August 21, 1968, and the fall and winter of Russian occupation and repression. Although the Levy family was expelled from Czechoslovakia in 1971, the experience was fodder for Levy's two monumental and critically acclaimed books on Czechoslovakia, ``Rowboat to Prague'' (1972), and ``The Bluebird of Happiness'' (1976). Levy spent the next 20 years in Vienna, publishing award-winning travel and theater articles for the New York Sunday Times and many other world-renowned publications. Vienna also witnessed the world premiere of Levy's first play, ``The World of Ruth Draper,'' in 1982. The play ran in Vienna, toured Europe, and enjoyed a successful 5-week run in New York's Times Square. In 1990, Levy returned to Prague as founding editor-in-chief of the Czech Republic's leading English-language newspaper. From this post, he has provided the English-speaking world an unparalleled reportage and analysis of the radical, post-communist transformation of one of Central Europe's most dynamic and beautiful countries. Mr. Speaker, Alan Levy's most recent, critically acclaimed work, ``The Wiesenthal File,'' assures his place among the great writers and journalists of our century. On this day following his receipt of the Author of the year Award, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Alan Levy on his accomplishments and celebrating his outstanding career in literature and journalism.