Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call to the attention of my colleagues an upcoming visit of considerable importance by Ms. Josie Mooney, president of the San Francisco Labor Council. She will embark on a good will journey to meet with labor leaders in China. Mr. Speaker, Josie Mooney and the San Francisco Labor Council represent the best of the American labor movement--free-working men and women, who are organized to seek better wages, improved working conditions, and a better standard of living for working men and women in our area and around our Nation. As the official representative of the San Francisco Labor Council, Josie Mooney will meet with leaders of the Shanghai Municipal Trade Union Council and other labor leaders. I wish her great success in those meetings as she works to build bonds of brotherhood between the working men and women of the United States and China. It is my sincere desire that the spirit and example of the San Francisco Labor Council and of the United States union movement will inspire labor leaders in China to emulate the high standards set by American unions and their outstanding leaders.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you know, Arson Awareness Week, commemorating the end of the Los Angeles fires set during the 1992 riots, just ended, with communities all across the country focussing public attention on the terrible costs in lives and money from arson for profit. Arson Awareness Week has the support of firefighters around the Nation, many of whom have organized with consumers, government agencies and insurers to combat this form of insurance fraud through public information and the advocacy of such groups as the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud. The coalition recently published in its newsletter the following article, ``Money To Burn'', which I would like inserted in the Congressional Record in recognition of our firefighters and the arson problem: Money To Burn (By Michael E. Diegel) arson-for-profit and its many faces are a dangerous--sometimes deadly-- form of insurance fraud In 560 cases in 1993, someone's world ended just as biblical writers predicted--in a blaze of fire. The 560 dead were the victims not of apocryphal wrath but of arson. For at least 80 other people living in apartments above a New York warehouse, salvation came in the form of investigators who unearthed a plot to burn the warehouse for the insurance money. There's no way to know how many of the 560 were killed in cases of arson for profit, but experts believe at least 15 percent of reported fires are deliberately set for several reasons, including insurance fraud and other profit-seeking motives. ``It's as difficult, or perhaps even more so, as determining the level of [other types of] insurance fraud,'' said Rick Gilman of the Insurance Committee for Arson Control. ``It's perhaps more difficult because arson covers a wide variety of motives where generally insurance fraud is strictly for profit.'' He defines arson for profit as ``an intentionally set fire to recover some financial gain. Maybe it's financial gain through insurance proceeds, maybe it's financial gain through reducing the competition, maybe it's financial gain through some other avenue. ``There isn't any information as to how common it is,'' Gilman continued. ``The whole issue is one that's very difficult to find out anything about because there hasn't been an effective study of that aspect of arson for over a decade.'' A 1982 study of closed claims files from 1980 was conducted by the Insurance Research Council's organizational predecessor, Gilman said. ``In general, what they found in the voluntary [insurance] market, the percentage of into the FAIR [Fair Access to Insurance Requirement] plan market, they found [arson cases were] upwards of 40-50 percent,'' Gilman reported. What is known are recent cases that illustrate the variety of arson-for-profit schemes, such as: A seven-person ring operating in Florida for at least six years. Participants torched houses, usually under the guise of renovation or construction projects. The group also burned cars and at least 15 insurance companies. A New Jersey couple accused in February of setting fire to their home after it languished on the real estate market for more than a year. Three San Francisco men were arrested in March and accused of buying a house in 1990, enhancing its value by presenting a fictitious lease-to-purchase agreement and filing a claim after setting the house afire. Investigators said one of the men had been pursued since the late 1970s for suspected arson, but this was the first time they'd gotten enough evidence to charge him. A Prince George's County (Md.) man who owns a topless bar recently was accused of hiring others to set fire to the county's only other topless bar. While large commercial arson cases and homeowner arson- related fraud is fairly common, arson for profit crosses all socioeconomic groups. Investigators in Buffalo, N.Y., report a rash of arson fires in apartments occupied by people on public assistance. Officials cited one woman who had fires break out in five separate apartments over three years. Relatives of hers experienced at least three fires. In these cases, burned out welfare clients move into public housing. They refuse to pay any rent and eventually are evicted. Then the apartment is torched, usually after all belongings have been surreptitiously removed. The client moves into a hotel, which is paid for, gets all her meals paid for, and collects on claims for the ``destroyed'' belongings. Typically, the ``victim'' can collect around $3,000 plus pocketing what would have gone to rent. Fire investigators believe that more than a third of the city's more than 300 arson fires can be attributed to the scheme, which they say is increasingly popular. In a couple of blatant cases, they report welfare clients related to each other had fires at the same time. Cases like these earn headlines or are part of the anecdotes told among arson investigators. So, too, are tales of arson by juvenile or serial offenders. Usually these cases aren't fraud-motivated arson. Residential fires, too, are less likely to be suspected arson for profit. ``It may be that the grease fire in the kitchen may have been intentionally set,'' Gilman said, ``but it's the local fire department and the local homeowner that maybe they know, [so] I think there may be less of a tendency to investigate residential fires unless it's glaringly evident--multiple ignition sights or other glaring evidence of arson.'' Gilman also suspects investigators are less likely to look closely at residential fires because there's not as much money involved as in commercial arson fires. Again, he lamented, ``There's all too few facts in this arena.'' Still, he added, companies are investigating fires more than in the past. ``The same intensity that is being addressed to insurance fraud is being found in the arson investigation arena,'' Gilman said. Companies are creating and expanding special investigation units, using resources such as property loss databases and public records, trying to identify patterns and motives. They also go low-tech. ``Some companies train arson dogs and give them to local fire departments,'' Gilman said, ``Nationwide has its own arson dog they use for their investigations, which I think is kind of neat.'' Passage of arson immunity laws has helped, too. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have some form of arson immunity to protect insurers who give information to law enforcement. In some cases, the law's scope is limited. For example, 14 states do not allow reciprocity; law enforcement cannot share information with insurers. Most insurers support full reciprocity in immunity laws and also would like to see legislation protecting insurer-to-insurer information sharing. And there is good news. The number of suspected arson fires has dropped for three straight years and there was a reported 11 percent drop in arson cases in cities with more than 1 million residents. However, the cost of those fires was up in 1993 by more than $350 million. The National Arson Forum, a group of companies and organizations concerned about arson, developed Arson Awareness Week (the first week of May) to bring the cost of this crime to the attention of the public. It also commemorates the end of the Los Angeles fires set during the 1992 riots. While the dollar costs are something that's borne by all of us, it's also a good time to remember that some of us pay with our lives.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Bereuter], and the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], for their strong support of this resolution. I think it is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that we are dealing with this issue today at a time when our administration is proposing principled and courageous action with respect to the terrorist regime of Iran. It seems to me that our administration deserves a great deal of support and commendation for its courageous and powerful move against the terrorist regime in Teheran at the same time it merits criticism for continuing an unprincipled and spineless policy towards our friends on Taiwan. I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a new policy. The Reagan administration had the same unprincipled and spineless policy. The Bush administration had the same unprincipled and spineless policy. I profoundly regret that the current administration has chosen not to change that policy, so it is up to the Congress to change that policy. In 1968 an enormously talented young scholar from Taiwan received a Ph.D. degree from one of our most distinguished universities, Cornell University. That man went on to become the President of our friend, the Republic of China on Taiwan. Now Cornell University has chosen to honor him with an honorary doctorate, and in an unconscionable fashion our Government would want to exclude this distinguished scholar and statesman from going back to his own alma mater to receive an honorary doctorate. This is a policy which is unacceptable to the Congress of the United States. Some would argue, Mr. Speaker, that there are economic reasons why this policy should be unacceptable, and certainly Taiwan is one of our great trading partners. The small population of Taiwan is buying twice as much from the United States than do the 1 billion 200 million people on the mainland of China, but that is not my reason for submitting this resolution. If Taiwan were to buy not a dime's worth of American products, as a matter of principle we should insist that President Lee come to Cornell to receive his honorary doctorate. I find it particularly galling that an administration which can tell our longstanding friend and ally, the United Kingdom, to go fly a kite and receive Gerry Adams in the White House--as I believe he should have been received in the White House-- should kowtow to Beijing, a Government which distinguishes itself with an outrageous human rights record in China, in Tibet, and elsewhere. I think it is long overdue that we stop kowtowing to the Communist butchers in Beijing, and to stand on our own principles. It will be a proud day when the President of Taiwan visits his own alma mater and receives his well-deserved honorary degree, and I urge all of my colleagues on both sides to support this resolution.

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

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, as we recall the 50th anniversary of the Allied victory over fascism in the Second World War, we cannot forget the individual heroes of the holocaust. The Congress of the United States, always at the forefront of the battle for liberty and human rights, bestowed honorary American citizenship upon Raoul Wallenberg in recognition of his triumphant battle to save as many as 100,000 innocent lives from certain death at the hands of the Nazis. There are many others around the world who have also dedicated their lives to pursuing the truth behind Wallenberg's disappearance into the gulag and to teaching the world about his heroic deeds. On this day, I wish to commend The Right Honorable Lord Braine of Wheatley for opening debate in the House of Lords about the lost hero of the Holocaust, Raoul Wallenberg. Throughout his 45 years in Parliament, Lord Braine has championed the case of human rights. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Lord Braine's lifelong efforts, and I offer an excerpt from his opening speech to the parliament on the 50th anniversary of Wallenberg's disappearance. Text of Proceedings From the House of Lords, January 17, 1995 Lord Braine of Wheatley. My Lords, the most terrible, heartbreaking story of man's gross inhumanity to man occurred during the lifetime of many of us. It was the murder of the majority of Europe's Jews by the Nazis. These innocent people, young and old, were slaughtered--not because they posed the remotest threat to the power of the Nazis, but simply because of their religion. It was genocide on a massive scale. The victims were worked to death, tortured, shot and gassed to death and their bodies burnt in huge incinerators. All of that took place in organised mass killings month after month during the Second World War. If there is a more monstrous story of sustained evil in human history, I have not heard of it. In that ocean of cruelty and hate in wartime Hungary, one great heroic figure stands out--a brave young Swedish diplomat named Raoul Wallenberg. Indeed, he became one of the greatest heroes of all time. In the closing months of the Second World War, he responded to the appeals of the world Jewish community and left neutral Sweden to do what he could to save what remained of Hungarian Jewry. So it was that in July 1994, Wallenberg went to what Simon Wiesenthal has referred to as ``the slaughterhouse that was Budapest.'' By that time some five million European Jews had already been cruelly murdered. The Nazis, aware that they were now losing the war, were obsessed with wiping out those who remained and were within their reach. Four months earlier, they had invaded Hungary with the declared purpose of exterminating that last remaining Jewish community in Europe. Obersturmbannfuhrer Adolf Eichmann was given the task of liquidating the Hungarian Jewish community. It is ironic that the Hungarian Jews, who had survived the longest in Nazi-occupied Europe, were now the quickest to be destroyed. In a two month period, from 15th May to 8th July 1944, 430,000 Hungarian Jews were deported to Auschwitz in sealed cattle trucks. Raoul Wallenberg became the head of a special department of the Swedish Legation in Budapest, charged with the task of helping the Jews wherever possible. He began by designing a Swedish protective passport to help them to resist both the Germans and Hungarians. Wallenberg had previously learned that both the German and Hungarian bureaucracies had a weakness for symbolism. So he had his passports attractively printed in blue and yellow (Sweden's national colours), displaying Sweden's coat of arms and the appropriate authorisations. I have such a passport, although I have not brought it with me today. It is a work of art. Wallenberg's passports had no validity whatsoever under international law, but they served their purpose, commanding the respect of those they were designed to influence. At first, he had permission to issue only 1,500 passports. But he managed to persuade the Hungarian authorities to let him issue 1,000 more and, by one means or another, managed to get the quota raised again. Altogether Wallenberg was to save the lives of 100,000 Hungarian Jewish men, women and children. At the risk of his own life, he distributed Swedish passports by the thousands, even following the death marches to the Austrian border, physically pulling people off the trains bound for Nazi concentration camps, confronting at every turn the Nazis and the death squads. He also successfully protected refugees in scores of houses that he bought or rented in Budapest, marking them with the neutral flag of Sweden. As the Soviet armies encircled Budapest in late 1944, Wallenberg fearlessly continued his work. On 13th January 1945, a Russian soldier saw a man standing alone outside a building with a large Swedish flag flying above its main entrance. It was Wallenberg. Speaking in fluent Russian, Wallenberg told an astonished Soviet sergeant that he was the Swedish charge' d'affaires for those parts of Hungary liberated by the Red Army. He was invited to visit the Soviet military headquarters at Debrecen, east of Budapest. On his way out of the capital on 17th January with a Soviet escort, Wallenberg and his chauffeur, Vilmos Langfelder, stopped at various ``Swedish Houses,'' where he bade farewell to his friends. He cheerfully told one colleague, Dr. Erno Peto, that he was not sure whether he would be the guest of the Soviets or their prisoner, but he thought he returned. According to reliable witnesses, Wallenberg and his driver were arrested and taken to Moscow, where they were thrown into prison. At first, the Soviet authorities maintained that Wallenberg had been taken into custody by the Red Army and that he was under their protection. However, nothing more was heard of him until 1947, when Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Vyshinsky, in answer to repeated Swedish inquiries, stated that he was not in the Soviet Union and his whereabouts were unknown to them. That was a blatant lie. Soviet prisoners of war, chiefly German, who were released in the early 1950s confirmed that Wallenberg had indeed been captured and imprisoned in Moscow, first in the dreaded Lubyanka and then in Lefortovskyaya prison. The Swedish Government intensified their inquiries, only to be told by the Soviet authorities that they had nothing to add to what they had said on the subject back in 1947. Again, during a visit to Moscow in 1956, the Swedish Prime Minister raised the matter with the Soviet leadership. He produced irrefutable evidence that Wallenberg had been imprisoned by the Soviets. The Soviet answer to this was not given until the following year--in the form of a note from the Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko to the Swedish Ambassador in Moscow. In that note--to which the Soviet Government have unfailingly referred every time there have been inquiries from the West--it was stated that, as a result of a thorough investigation by the Soviet authorities, it had been discovered that a prisoner named ``Walenberg''--with one ``l'', which is the Lithuanian spelling of the name--had in fact died from a heart attack in 1947 in Lubyanka. It was also asserted that all the documents pertaining to his case had disappeared and that there was only a handwritten report about his death made by the head of the prison hospital service, one A.L. Smoltsov, who had since died. It seems that Smoltsov had informed the Minister for State Security, Abakumov, who himself was later to be executed in the purges of the Security Police, that Wallenberg was dead. Abakumov, of course, was a convenient person to blame for having misled the Soviet Foreign Ministry in the first place. There was lie after lie, deception after deception. I must tell noble Lords that the Swedish Government have never accepted--and as far as I am aware, no Western government has accepted--the Soviet line that Wallenberg died in 1947. Why should I say that? The answer is that there is abundant evidence that he was alive after that date. Further evidence did come to light in later years indicating that Wallenberg was alive but imprisoned in the Soviet Union. Indeed the great Russian historian Solzhenitsyn has testified that he met a Swede fitting Wallenberg's description during his own imprisonment. Is it possible then that Raoul Wallenberg could still be alive? Well, it is not impossible. If he were alive today, he would be just two years older than myself. Spartan conditions have on occasions--many a doctor can testify to this--proved beneficial to a long life. Incredible though it may sound, during his research for the BBC's brilliant ``Man Alive'' documentary on Wallenberg, John Bierman met a Russian Jew, Leonid Berger, who was allowed to emigrate in 1978 after spending no fewer that 35 years in Soviet jails. It is my duty to draw your Lordships' attention to rumours being circulated that the family of Raoul Wallenberg now accepts that he is no longer alive. There is no truth in this. Indeed, contact has been made with United States Congressman Tom Lantos, who was himself rescued from death by Wallenberg and is the only survivor of the Holocaust to be elected to the United States Congress. The Congressman's office contacted Nina Lagergren, Wallenberg's half-sister, and she has categorically denied that any member of the Wallenberg family concedes that he is dead. I am happy to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to Congressman Lantos, who has kept Wallenberg's name alive both inside and outside the United States Congress and was also responsible for him being granted honorary American citizenship. It is now generally accepted that during his stay in Hungary, Wallenberg saved 100,000 lives. We should never, never, never, never forget this. May I humbly suggest that we should honour this brave man by following the example already provided by our American friends and allies by making him an honorary British citizen? In an almost poetic sense, honorary citizenship is uniquely appropriate to Wallenberg quite simply because he used the privilege of Swedish citizenship to save thousands of innocent lives. Indeed, conferring citizenship--the instrument Wallenberg exercised with so much courage, generosity and imagination--accounts not only for the fact that thousands who were granted Swedish citizenship by him are still alive today and have children and grandchildren, but also for the fact that, following his example, other countries which were neutrals in the war--Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and the Vatican--granted citizenship as a means of saving Jewish lives. Why then even after all these years should we in Britain honour Wallenberg's name in this way? The answer is that, with no thought for his own safety, in what has been called ``the slaughterhouse that was Budapest'', he accomplished the impossible. Sometimes alone, sometimes with others, he thwarted the designs of the most murderous regime the civilised world has ever seen. He bribed the unspeakable Nazis; he charmed them on occasions; he lied to them; he certainly threatened and bullied them; and used every other means he could devise to save the lives of the Budapest Jews. He was a Swedish diplomat. He had some authority. He even entered the deportation trains himself to pull of innocent human beings who would otherwise have gone to a cruel death. He worked incessantly, at great personal risk with utter disregard for his own safety, and through the sheer force of his example inspired hundreds of others to assist him. At the end, when the Red Army entered Budapest, and what little remained of Nazi rule collapsed into anarchy, Wallenberg worked on tirelessly. He told a Swedish diplomat who urged him to seek cover in the Swedish Legation: ``For me there is no choice . . . I'd never be able to go back to Stockholm without knowing inside myself that I'd done all a man could do to save as many Jews as possible.'' So it is that we remember Wallenberg because he has become more than a hero of our times. He symbolises the central conflict of our age, the determination to remain human, caring and free in the face of unspeakable tyranny. What Wallenberg represented in Budapest was nothing less than the conscience of the civilised world. By abducting and imprisoning him, the Soviet authorities did more than violate the long-standing rules of diplomacy accepted by civilised nations and their govenrments, they demonstrated contempt for everything his dedication and bravery in Budapest had achieved. Yet even the Soviet Union of those days did not succeed in suppressing his achievements. Just as the Nazis could not keep him from his mission, so the Soviets failed to obliterate his legacy. All mankind owes a great debt to this man, not only for the 100,000 lives he saved, but also for the example he gave us as to how one man with courage to care, even in history's darkest hour, can become a beacon of light and can make a difference. There are two very good reasons for remembering this courageous man. First, because as the author of Milan Kundera observes, ``The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.'' Secondly, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, the world may little note nor long remember what we say here, but surely it will always remember what Raoul Wallenberg did to salvage the dignity of the human spirit from what was a hell on earth. It is a great honour to pay tribute to him this afternoon.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the San Francisco Chronicle has done a superb job cutting through the deceptive rhetoric of the majority in Congress to reveal the real reason behind welfare reform, Republican style: massive tax cuts for the rich paid for by cutting benefits to the millions of poor, elderly, disabled, and legal aliens of our country. As the editors so aptly point out, simply cutting benefits to our most vulnerable citizens will do absolutely nothing to solve the most difficult problems facing them and our society as a whole. Meaningful welfare reform must replace dependency with independence while maintaining the safety net for those truly in need. Although real reform will not be simple and it will not be cheap, the alternative-- cutting off our most needy citizens--is the epitome of short- sightedness. Mr. Speaker, I commend your attention and the attention of my colleagues to this excellent and timely editorial, and I ask that it be placed in the Record. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 3, 1995] Welfare on the Cheap Is Not Reform Any hope that the Senate might salvage some glimmer of actual ``reform'' from the House-passed welfare bill largely vanished last week when Senate Finance Committee chairman Bob Packwood, R-Ore.--who will draft the Senate version-- indicated he would go along with the House in ending the federal entitlement nature of most welfare programs and turning them into block grants to the states. That basic approach has everything to do with cutting spending for the poor in order to heap tax cuts on the rich-- and virtually nothing to do with welfare reform. As Senator John Chafee, R-R.I., noted last week: ``Instead of focusing on employability * * * out-of-wedlock births and * * * intergenerational welfare dependency, the focus (of the House bill) seems to be entirely on how to save money.* * *'' That, in fact, is the basic flaw in the Republican approach: the contradiction between saving money and reforming welfare. Real welfare reform, the kind that ends dependency and self-defeating behavior by putting people to work, costs money, it doesn't save it. It requires, at a minimum, paying for job training, child care and job creation--none of which are adequately provided today. The original GOP contract spoke of spending $10 billion on jobs programs. The House-passed bill offers nothing--simply the requirement that welfare recipients must work after two years, whether there are any jobs or not, or lose benefits. Trying to do welfare on the cheap will result only in a system even less effective and more wasteful than the present one. It is not simply foolish, but mean-spirited, for it arises not from any desire to improve an imperfect system, but from the barely disguised motive of trying to pay for $190 billion worth of middle- and upper-class tax cuts at the expense of the weakest, most disenfranchised members of society: poor women and children, who are the major beneficiaries of welfare, and legal resident aliens, who have paid taxes and played by all the rules but can't vote. What would real welfare reform look like? It might well include the GOP demand to turn programs over to the states, as President Clinton has also urged, so that flexibility and experimentation might flourish free of burdensome federal mandates. It would also include more money, not less, for innovative jobs programs. But the Republican block grant approach simply replaces liberal federal mandates with conservative ones, and it further constricts the states by reducing overall projected spending by some $65 billion over five years in order to pay for tax breaks. As the Economist magazine observed last week, the Republicans are passing up a chance ``to do welfare reform in a way that is right rather than merely right wing.'' If the Senate goes along, the only hope for real welfare reform will be the veto pen.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and commend Mr. David Louie, a two-time Emmy Award winning reporter for KGO-TV in San Francisco, for his long and distinguished career. After 25 years of excellence in broadcasting and a bright future ahead of him, David is and will continue to be one of the premier television reporters in the Nation. In the many years that I have known David, he has always been a shining example of integrity and intelligence in broadcast journalism. David has been at KGO-TV since 1972, starting as a general assignment reporter, and now is the business editor and money reporter as well as a contributing reporter on ``Marketplace,'' the station's weekly business program. Recently, David Louie was elected as chairman of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences [NATAS], a nonprofit organization of 10,000 members committed to enriching the quality of television programming. Elected to the NATAS board in June 1994 and currently serving a 25-year term, David is known nationally for his remarkable contribution to the field of journalism. David's active involvement in the community and in promoting the advancement of broadcast journalism prompted Mayor Frank Jordan of San Francisco to declare July 19, 1994, as ``David Louie Day.'' Also, David was inducted into the prestigious NATAS Silver Circle, composed of media professionals who have served as broadcasters for 25 years and who have made notable contributions to Northern California television programming. In 1990, David was elected as national president of the Asian American Journalists Association, an organization encouraging ethnic diversity in our Nation's newsrooms. He has and continues to serve with distinction in this extremely important capacity. Mr. Speaker, these numerous awards and honors speak volumes about one of our Nation's finest reporters. In friendship and admiration, I extend my most heartfelt congratulations to this extraordinary American.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to recognize the extraordinary accomplishments of a distinguished and public spirited American and good friend, David Steiner. Over the years, David has shown leadership and unparalleled intelligence when tackling the immensely difficult endeavors he frequently undertakes, whether it is developing an innovative and functional industrial office park under a tight deadline or developing meaningful answers to our complex foreign policy questions in the Middle East. David deserves the highest possible commendation for his many accomplishments. David's distinguished career dates back to the Korean war. When called to duty, First Lieutenant Steiner led a military team building bridges and hospitals. When he returned home, David became a partner with the Sudler Cos., and he later became its president and CEO. He has been a driving force at this highly successful company for over four decades. David's career presented him with many challenges and obstacles that less tenacious developers would have been overwhelmed by or simply rejected. In one instance, AT&T approached David to choose a site and design and build an 840,000 square foot electronic research lab within 24 months. He met this challenge, including completing a 40,000 square foot computer center in only 60 days. David has devoted a great deal of his resources, time, and energy to tackling the difficult problems that Israel faces in the Middle East and he has not been hesitant to fight for what is right. As president emeritus of the American-Israel Political Affairs Committee, David has been an effective and influential friend of Israel. As vice president of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, David has worked with leaders like Alexander Haig, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and George Shultz. David is also an area chairman for the Anti-Defamation League and vice chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council. In these diverse and demanding capacities, David has distinguished himself as an enlightened leader with a wealth of ideas. On April 3, David will receive the National Award of the Orthodox Union Institute for Public Affairs in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the American Jewish community. Surely there is no individual more deserving of this high honor. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in extending our most heartfelt gratitude and admiration to this extraordinary American.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to take note of an excellent op-ed in the Washington Post of March 17 by my good friend and highly respected foreign policy analyst, Charles Gati. As we reevaluate our relationship with Boris Yeltsin and a rapidly changing Russia, Charles Gati provides an invaluable perspective on the internal disintegration of Russian society and its effect on Yeltsin's ability to govern. While not making excuses for the mistakes Yeltsin has made, we must understand that, as Charles has put it, ``Yeltsin's about-face [on reform] is a symptom, not the cause, of Russia's plight.'' I commend Charles for his incisive and thoughtful analysis and urge my colleagues to read this excellent piece: [From the Washington Post, Mar. 17, 1995] Weimar Russia (By Charles Gati) In his astute analysis of Russia's predicament [op-ed, Feb. 22], Peter Reddaway convincingly shows that President Boris Yeltsin has all but abandoned the course of reform he began in 1991. The point that needs to be added is that Yeltsin's about- face is a symptom, not the cause, of Russia's plight. As the transition from one-party rule and the command economy to today's chaotic conditions has benefited few and alienated many, public support for reform has yielded to pressure for retrenchment. In Moscow, members of the small biznis class can afford to rent a dacha for more than $5,000 a month, eat out at a fashionable Swiss restaurant where the main course costs $40, and pay $3.25 for a slice of Viennese torte. By contrast, the vast majority of the Russian people, who earn less than $100 a month if employed, are worse off than they were under communism. The nostalgia they feel for an improved version of the bad old days of order, however oppressive, and the welfare state, however meager, is as understandable as it is unfortunate. They walk by Moscow's elegant storefronts that display expensive Western-made goods priced in dollars, not in rubles, wondering what has happened to their lives and to their country. They look for scapegoats at home and abroad. Showing disturbing similarities to Weimar Germany of the 1920s, Russia is a humiliated country in search of direction without a compass. It is smaller than it has been in three centuries. Both the outer empire in Central and Eastern Europe and the inner empire that was the Soviet Union are gone, and Moscow must now use force to keep even Russia itself together. As its pitiful (and shameful) performance in Chechnya has shown, the military has been reduced to a ragtag army, with presumably unusable nuclear weapons. Four thousand five hundred rubles--worth more than $4,500 only a few years ago--are now gladly exchanged for one dollar. For its very sustenance, Russia is at the mercy of the International Monetary Fund, which can palliate but surely cannot cure the country's economic ills. Worse yet, Russia is deprived of pride and self-respect. There was a time, during World War II, when the whole world admired the Soviet military for its extraordinary boldness and bravery. There was a time, in the 1950s, when several ex- colonies of Asia sought to emulate the Soviet model of rapid industrialization and when Soviet science moved ahead of the United States in space research. There was a time, from the 1920s through the 1970s, when many--too many--Western intellectuals and others believed that Soviet-style communism was the wave of the future. And there was a time when then- Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko claimed that no significant issue in world politics could be settled without Moscow's concurrence. To appreciate the present mood of letdown and frustration, imagine that our currency became all but worthless; that our stores identified some of their wares in the Cyrillic rather than the Roman alphabet, showing prices in rubles; that our political and economic life were guided by made-in-Moscow standards; and that our leaders were lectured by patronizing foreign commissars about the need to stay the course in order to join their ``progressive,'' which is to say the communist, world. In the final analysis, the condition of Weimar Russia is alarming because it is at once a weak democracy and a weak police state, pluralistic and yet intolerant, pro-American in its promise but anti-American in its resentments. The public--its pride deflated and its economic needs unmet-- craves order at home and respect abroad. The authoritarian temptation is pervasive, and so is the urge to be--and to be seen--as strong once again. The West may defer the day of reckoning, but it cannot obviate the Russians' eventual need to compensate for the humiliation that is their present fate.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in extending a warm welcome to the United States to His Majesty Hassan II, King of Morocco, who is visiting our country over the next few days. Not only is King Hassan an outstanding and long-time friend of the United States, who has championed the cause of economic progress and democracy in his own country and peace and progress in the Middle East conflict, but he is the head of state of a country with which the United States has had a long and friendly relationship. Morocco was the first nation to recognize the independence of the United States of America in 1777, and it has been a steadfast ally of our country since that time. During the 33 years of his reign, King Hassan has presided over the remarkable economic and political development of the Kingdom of Morocco. He was a dynamic leader in protectorates. Shortly after ascending to the throne in 1961, King Hassan established a constitutional monarchy based on a multiparty political system including free elections, an elected parliament, a free press, and free trade unions. The King has worked tirelessly for the economic and social progress of his people. I also want to commend His Majesty particularly for his commitment to a pluralistic society that is tolerant of ethnic and religious diversity. Morocco's leaders have promoted peace through diplomatic dialog long before the country was liberated from colonial rule. King Hassan has continued in that distinguished national tradition, and he has personally played an important international role that has benefited countries and peoples well beyond the borders of Morocco. King Hassan is a former head of the Organization of African Unity, and he is a leader in the Arab world whose moderating influence has helped stabilize this turbulent region. Recently, under the leadership of King Hassan, Morocco has played an extremely positive role in seeking to bring peace to the Middle East. King Hassan was the first Arab leader to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and Foreign Minister Peres following the signing of the Declaration of Principles in Washington, DC, in September, 1993, between Israel and the PLO, and Morocco was the first Arab country after the signing of that declaration to establish a liaison office in Israel. I have personally witnessed the remarkable progress and modernization of the kingdom of Morocco under the leadership of King Hassan, and I have had the opportunity to meet with His Majesty King Hassan on a number of occasions over many years. I have the utmost respect and admiration for the enlightened leadership he has provided the kingdom of Morocco, in Africa and in the Arab world. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to extend a warm hand of friendship and goodwill to this champion of peace and democracy in the true spirit of our Nation on the occasion of his visit to the United States.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say a few words about the job classification of workers, and to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 510, the Misclassification of Employees Act. Small business men and women have contacted many of us to explain some of the important reasons why Congress should take another look at how workers are classified for Federal income and employment tax purposes, as well as for many non-tax purposes. We know that confusion with employee classification rules can lead to costly disputes with the IRS with devastating effects on small businesses. These costs include, among others, assessments of back taxes, interest and penalties for businesses which misclassify workers as independent contractors, as well as the legal costs involved with coming into compliance with or defending against an IRS audit. There are other issues relating to the misclassification of workers that arise out of the current procedures for determining who is an employee and who is an independent contractor, including the effect of misclassification on the unsuspecting worker, the effect of misclassification on the honest businessman trying to compete with a competitor who has misclassified his workers, and the effect of misclassification on the Federal budget deficit. H.R. 510 would remedy some of the unintended effects that arise out of the current procedures for determining who is an employee and who is an independent contractor. I would like to make clear from the outset, however, that I agree with and recognize the appropriate and valuable roles of those who work as independent contractors. This country has benefited greatly from the spirit and independence of the self-employed individual and there is anyone who wants to stifle the creativity of these individuals. It is the misuse of the independent contractor status and its serious adverse effect on both employer and worker that concerns me. My colleague, Chris Shays, and I became interested in the classification of workers several years ago when we served together on the Employment and Housing Subcommittee of the Government Operations Committee. We found that the current means of determining employment status has had several negative effects: First, it results in similarly situated employers being treated very differently under tax law; second, it allows--and actually encourages--businesses to undercut competitors through unfair practices; third, it leaves some workers exploited and unprotected; and fourth, it deprives the Federal Government of significant revenue. Under current law, workers are classified as either employees or independent contractors in one of three ways. First, some workers are explicitly categorized as either employees or independent contractors by statute. Second, workers may be classified as independent contractors under statutory ``safe harbors'' enacted in section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978. Third, if a worker is not classified statutorily, and cannot be classified under the statutory ``safe harbor,'' then the worker is classified by applying a very subjective common law test. Most workers fall under this third category. Current law allows some employers to misclassify workers if they have a ``reasonable basis'' for classifying employees as independent contractors. Thus, an employer may rely upon a prior IRS audit, including audits not made for employment tax purposes, in holding a reasonable basis for classifying workers. It makes no sense to permit the wrongful classification of workers based on a previous audit which may have had nothing to do with the issue of worker classification. Our legislation eliminates the ``safe harbor'' provisions which allow the misclassification of employees to continue. We thus restore a level playing field and eliminate the unfair competitive advantages which arise due to the misclassification of workers. Because the common law test is extremely subjective, employers have trouble in properly determining worker classification, and revenue agents often classify workers differently even where the underlying circumstances of their employment are the same. Since a large part of the misclassification of workers is due to a lack of understanding of the laws, clearer rulings and definitions will eliminate a tremendous amount of uncertainty in this area. Our legislation eliminates the restrictions on the IRS to draft regulations and rulings on the employment status of workers for tax purposes. Employers who have unintentionally misclassified workers should be given the incentive to come into compliance. Therefore, our legislation offers a 1-year amnesty to employers who have misclassified workers on the basis of a good faith interpretation of common law or of section 503. This provision removes the devastating possibility of large assessments for back taxes, interest and penalties and insures compliance in the future. Misclassification can have a devastating effect on the unsuspecting worker. As a contractor, he or she may receive a higher take-home pay and may be allowed to deduct more business expenses from income taxes. But the loss of financial benefits and of the many protections which are provided to employees can be catastrophic in cases of illness, unemployment and retirement. For example, there is no unemployment compensation for the independent contractor to fall back on between jobs. Health insurance is an individual responsibility and is usually far more costly than an employer's group policy. In the case of work- related injury or illness, there is no worker's compensation available. Our legislation would require prime contractors to notify legitimate independent contractors of all their tax obligations and other statutory rights and protections. Mr. Speaker, our investigation found that the economic incentives for businesses to misclassify workers as independent contractors are huge. An employer who misclassifies a worker as an independent contractor escapes many obligations, including paying social security taxes, unemployment taxes and workers compensation insurance, withholding income taxes and providing benefits such as vacation, sick and family leave, health and life insurance, pensions, et cetera. Most employers are honest, but the law abiding employer is put at a serious disadvantage since he or she cannot compete on a level playing field with those who illegally cut their labor costs. Law abiding employers will not be able to compete fairly until we provide more clear, objective standards by which businesses and the Government can determine whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, billions of dollars in Federal and State tax revenues are being lost as a result of the intentional misclassification of workers. This is one of the few remaining areas where we can help balance the Federal budget deficit without further cutting Government services or levying new taxes. A recent Coopers and Lybrand study found that at least $35 billion in legitimate tax revenue over the next 9 years will be lost by the Federal Government due to the misclassification of employees. At a time when critical services are on the chopping block, we can no longer allow this waste and abuse to continue. We must take steps to curb the continued misclassification of employees.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call to the attention of my colleagues legislation I have introduced with three of our distinguished colleagues that would require United States businesses operating in China to adhere to internationally recognized labor standards. Its purpose is to ensure that the United States corporate presence in China promotes better working conditions and thereby contributes to political liberalization and respect for human rights inside that country. The bill's three original cosponsors, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Smith, and Gerald B.H. Solomon, reflect the broad, bipartisan support for a tougher United States stance toward China. When President Clinton decided last May to renew most-favored-nation trade status [MFN] for China and to delink human rights performance from trade benefits, I predicted that this action would not lay to rest this divisive issue, but only postpone our coming to terms with the brutal Chinese regime. The recent crisis over China's blatant violation of United States intellectual property rights [IPR] proves my point, and demonstrates that it is not possible to compartmentalize our relations with a state that has a total disregard for the rule of law. We are foolish to believe that the same Chinese Government that rejects the entire corpus of international human rights law will dutifully uphold international trade agreements. The truth, as the IPR dispute so clearly shows, is that a government that disregards international law in one area is going to do so in any area where it perceives an interest in following its own rogue course. Thus, the Chinese routinely violate arms control and trade agreements. Moreover, China's human rights performance has worsened since the President renewed MFN for China, as documented in State Department and Human Rights Watch/Asia reporting. Obviously, the Chinese Government feels that Washington will exact no price for its abysmal human rights record, and the continuing ruthless repression exposes the fallacy of the argument that trade provides an avenue for construction engagement with repressive regimes. Nevertheless, as the trips to China of Secretaries Brown and O'Leary demonstrated, the United States business community is eager to pursue promising opportunities in China, and enhanced United States-Chinese commercial relations will no doubt greatly benefit both countries. However, in the mad dash to get a piece of the action, let us at least ensure that United States companies do not inadvertently contribute to the maintenance of the intolerable status quo for hundreds of millions of Chinese workers. The foreign business community's ultimate value comes from its good example, not its mere presence. It must adhere to internationally recognized standards of labor law in order to be a catalyst of progress. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation with my three distinguished colleagues that would require United States businesses operating in China to follow internationally recognized labor standards. This code of conduct is not burdensome or unreasonable. It does not impose heavy reporting requirements or advocate labor practices as stringent as those found in the United States, but its adoption by the United States business community would spur political liberalization in China by making the workplace a safer, more humane environment where coercion, repression, and intimidation have no role. It is important for the Chinese Government, the American business community, and the administration to know that the Congress is serious about seeing progress on human rights in China. If voluntary action does not bring results, then binding legislation is required. The Sullivan principles were a major catalyst for change in South Africa, and it is my strong feeling that these principles can play the same role in China. If United States business truly wants to promote positive change in China, then adherence to this code of conduct offers an excellent vehicle for the implementation of that agenda without in any way harming United States competitiveness in the international marketplace. Demonstrating that the U.S. corporate community believes that good ethics and good business go hand-in-hand would send an unmistakable signal to the Chinese Government and provide powerful support to Chinese workers.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my collages to read an excellent editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle on the United Nations. The Chronicle and Ambassador Madeleine Albright, our permanent U.S. representative at the United Nations, are to be commended for their compelling argument for maintaining the integrity of the United Nations. We are in an era of opportunity--we have the extraordinary opportunity to create a more peaceful, more humane, and more orderly world now that we have entered the post-cold-war era. This is not the time for the United States to enter into a new era of isolationism. Mr. Speaker, I commend your attention and the attention of my colleagues to this excellent and timely editorial, and I ask that it be placed in the Record. [From the San Francisco Chronicle] U.N. Peacekeeping Is Worth Fighting For Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, threw down a gauntlet two weeks ago: ``This administration,'' she pledged, ``will not allow the hullabaloo over (the GOP Contract with America) to cause the Charter of the United Nations--the `contract' of Truman and Vandenberg and Dulles and FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt and the generation that triumphed over the Nazis--to be ripped to shreds.'' This week, President Clinton himself should publicly join in that pledge with a veto vow when the House of Representatives takes up passage of the misnamed National Security Revitalization Act--a transparent effort to fatally undermine the U.N.'s central security role: peacekeeping. Under the guise of making the U.S. rule in U.N. peacekeeping more accountable to Congress, the bill would dramatically cut U.S. financing, virtually prohibit the deployment of U.S. forces under foreign command and require congressional approval before a single American soldier is sent into a U.N. peacekeeping operation--something Congress has never before found the political courage to do. The financing restrictions are ludicrous in the extreme. By requiring that all voluntary U.S. military contributions to missions approved by the Security Council--such as logistics and transport support--be deducted from the U.S. peacekeeping assessment, the legislation could actually result in the U.N. owing money to the United States. As Secretary of State Warren Christopher has testified: ``Such a proposal would eliminate all U.S. payments for U.N. peacekeeping. It would almost certainly lead our NATO allies and Japan (which also make large voluntary contributions) to follow suit. * * * It would threaten to end U.N. peacekeeping overnight.'' Certainly the explosion of U.N. peacekeeping demands in the wake of the Cold War, their rising costs and the increasingly complexity and danger of the missions require more critical attention. But Washington has already unilaterally reduced its peacekeeping assessments from 31 percent to 25 percent, and the Clinton administration last May imposed strict new standards for U.S. participation. Today, fewer than 1,000 Americans are wearing blue helmets, and the U.S. financing contribution is less than 0.5 percent of all foreign policy and national security spending. What we get for that is enormous global leverage and burden sharing in pursuit of direct and indirect U.S. interests--the ability, in many cases, to achieve goals at a fraction of the cost of unilateral action. Passage of this legislation would, in effect, turn this 50th anniversary year of the United Nations into a de facto funeral. That must not be allowed to happen.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues a very important document brought to my attention by my very good friend, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski. Below is the text of a resolution unanimously passed by the Bundestag in Germany on January 20, 1995, regarding the Russian debacle in Chechnya. I commend the German Parliament for its principled stand and I urge my colleagues to carefully consider it as a model for our own policy. The article follows: German Parliament Resolution on Chechnya, January 20, 1995 Begin informal translation: The German Bundestag is deeply concerned and dismayed at the dangerous development of the situation in Chechnya. It does not contest the right of the Russian federation to preserve its territorial integrity within the legal framework provided for by the Russian constitution and in observance of international law and human rights, as well as OSCE principles and other rules with which it (the Russian Federation) had agreed to comply under a binding obligation. The Russian actions in Chechnya constitute, however, a grave violation of the principles of the OSCE, the provisions of the 1992/1994 Vienna Document on confidence and security building measures, and of the U.N. Human Rights Conventions. The acts of violence, the disregard of human rights, and the indiscriminate and unrestrained use of military force are unacceptable. The military actions in Chechnya shake the confidence in the democratization process of the Russian Federation. The German Bundestag deplores the appalling loss of human lives, the sacrifice and the suffering of the civilian population caused by the armed conflict in Chechnya. The German Bundestag supports all efforts to call on Russia emphatically to continue the intensive dialogue started within the OSCE and to use all possibilities of the OSCE to solve the crisis. The German Bundestag calls on the Russian Government and the Chechen fighters to stop the fighting immediately and unconditionally, to end the bloodshed and to seek a political solution of the conflict which takes into account the legitimate interests of Russia as well as those of the Chechen population. Only such a solution can exclude dangers for the reform process, democratization and the stability of the whole region; only a democratic Russia will be able to remain a close partner of Germany, the EU and NATO. The German Bundestag reaffirms its support for the Russian democrats who champion human rights and the rule of law. Germany wants to remain Russia's partner and friend. End informal translation. Adopted unanimously by the Bundestag on January 20, 1995.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and commend Ms. Anita Semjen, director of the Cultural Exchange Foundation, for her exceptional efforts in keeping alive the memories of the victims of the Holocaust. Ms. Semjen is currently the director of the Cultural Exchange Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based, non-profit organization promoting Hungarian-American cultural exchanges. Her most recent effort involve ``Victims and Perpetrators,'' an exhibition which is scheduled to be shown in Budapest, Hungary on February 26, 1995. Following its presentation at the Budapest Jewish Museum, the works will be displayed in several major United States cities, eventually entering the collection of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. ``Victims and Perpetrators'' presents the works of Ilka Gedo and Gyorgy Roman, artists who lived through the Hungarian Holocaust, in which some 500,000 Hungarian Jews were taken to German concentration camps and murdered. Ilka Gedo's drawings from the Budapest ghettos expose painful memories of the past. Gyorgy Roman, reputedly Hungary's most emulated artist, has sketched scenes from court proceedings of the war criminal trials. Ms. Anita Semjen found Roman's sketch work through a combination of determination and luck, which has led to its first ever public showing in ``Victims and Perpetrators.'' Both artists' works are unique for their extraordinary insight coupled with their artistic value and intimacy of perception. Ms. Semjen demonstrates an admirable understanding of the arts and peoples of both the United States and Hungary. At a time when innocent peoples still fall victim to religious and ethnic persecution, Ms. Semjen's exhibition rekindles our often passive conscience. Therefore, today, Mr. Speaker, more than 50 years after the tragedy of the Hungarian Holocaust, I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring the diligent efforts of Anita Semjen in reminding us of the grievous memories of the past and of the lessons history teaches us in the interminable fight against cruelty and oppression.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring recognition to an extraordinary man on the occasion of his retirement as the president of Applied Biosystems, Inc., in Foster City, CA. Mr. Andre F. Marion has been a pioneer in the emerging and important field of biotechnology and a pioneer in employee and customer relations. As Mr. Marion moves on to the next stage in his life, his intelligence and creativity will be sorely missed. Mr. Marion, with a handful of associates, essentially began the biotechnology industry. In 1991 he left the research and development staff of the Hewlett Packard Co. to build the first DNA sequencer that began the biotechnology revolution. But even the tremendous financial and business success of his company is not Mr. Marion's true legacy. During his 12 years as president, chief executive officer, and chairman of the board of Applied Biosystems, Inc., Mr. Marion ran his company with what he himself called ``Values for Success,'' which included absolute attachment to integrity, consideration of the customer, and the highest achievable level of quality. He shared with his employees equally in the profits, stock options, and even the physical setting of the company's campus. Andre Marion is a model for all entrepreneurs, executives, and those involved in business and government to follow. I commend him in the strongest possible terms and wish him a long and happy retirement.