Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 40th anniversary of the National Endowment for the Humanities and to offer my congratulations to its chairman, Bruce Cole. In 1965, Congress discovered that the most successful democracies consist of the most informed, the most curious, and the most creative citizens. When the 89th Congress created the National Endowment for the Humanities, it declared that ``Democracy demands wisdom and vision in its citizens.'' For 40 years, the NEH has promoted ``wisdom and vision'' by advancing the study and understanding of history, literature, languages, archaeology, philosophy, and other humanities subjects, throughout the United States. As Chairman Cole has so profoundly observed, ``The humanities are the study of what makes us human: the legacy of our past, the ideas and principles that motivate us, and the eternal questions that we still ponder. The classics and archeology show us whence our civilization came. The study of literature and art shape our sense of beauty. The knowledge of philosophy and religion give meaning to our concepts of justice and goodness.'' Today, the role humanities play in education is increasingly important. Of all the learning disciplines, they tap and expand the human imagination the most. In a world of exploding options for individuals and families, it is imperative that history provide reference points, and when there is no experience to serve as guide, that the imagination be stimulated, and perspectives applied and values brought to bear. Without reference to the guide posts of the humanities, society loses its soul. It becomes rudderless in the seas of societal change.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, a friend passed away this week. Who was Gene Krekel and why do we mourn his passing? The irony in America is there are a lot of lawyer jokes. Actually good lawyers are the most respected people in the community. Gene personifies the best in his profession--the professional who is careful in judgment and caring in concern. His career and his life were characterized by decency and a steadfast commitment to causes. Gene was a Republican, the Des Moines county Chairman and my campaign leader for many years, but Gene had as many Democratic as Republican friends. His commitment to his chosen party had little to do with partisanship and everything to do with selfless fair play. American divides between two political teams, each with a great heritage. The modern-day trend is to accentuate differences, appeal to lowest-common-denominator instincts, and resort to divisive strategies. Gene was an old-fashioned political loyalist who was appalled by such tactics. He believed in principles and values, friendship rather than grudges. It may have been courtroom training, which while advocacy-oriented, recognized that all sides generally have some justice to their case; it may have been his understanding that there will always be another battle to follow that caused him to eschew the negative. But his approach to work and life were rooted in a deeper instinct as well. Gene was born on a Des Moines County farm and always maintained a rural reserve in a city profession. While temptations to glibness and cynicism abound in our society, Gene was imbued with a genteel Iowa optimism that evoked trust in all with whom he dealt. It is this trust that caused everyone associated with good causes to seek his leadership. From politics to his church, from bar associations to 4-H, Gene could be counted on for the thoughtful mettle that had earned him Phi Beta Kappa honors in college and order of the coif in law school. But of all his activities, the one Gene enjoyed the most was the Des Moines county fair, which for many years he chaired. Gene loved, above all, the youth education projects: the showing of cattle and hogs, chickens and sheep, rabbits and gerbels. It was the tie of generations and the nature and history of Iowa's agricultural enterprise that appealed so deeply to him. None of us can imagine Gene's disappointment not to meet in this life his first grandchild due in just a few weeks. This tragedy is more poignant because Gene and Debbie suffered together one of the gravest of life's tragedies, the death of their son Eric in a car accident eight years ago. In their close-knit family, nothing could have been sadder that the passing of this freckle faced boy who developed a genius for happiness and friendship. Now Debbie and Molly are left alone, struck by the loss of the anchor of the family. Their grief is ours also. This big man with a big hand and bigger heart will be much missed by all who had the good fortune to be touched by his gentleness.

Mr. LEACH

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 427) relating to the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, our deliberations today have focused, and rightly so, on the catastrophe that has befallen the people of the gulf coast and our efforts and, indeed, the world's efforts, to ameliorate their situation. We should, however, pause and take note of a somber anniversary, the fourth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001, which will occur this weekend. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Lantos) have worked out a text to recognize this anniversary which incorporated language from the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), and that the House leadership has encouraged us to bring it to the floor in a timely manner. One year ago, we were involved in the middle stages of the efforts to pass the intelligence reform legislation recommended by the 9/11 Commission. Now we must oversee the implementation of that law and determine what additional improvements to our government's structures or substantive policies need to be made. The resolution before us recalls the events of nearly 4 years ago, notes that the attacks were intended to assail our principles, values, and freedoms, and weaken our national resolve. It recalls our worldwide efforts against terrorism and notes that those who have attacked us in New York, at the Pentagon, and in the skies over Pennsylvania have continued their efforts in London, Madrid, and Sharm el-Sheik, although they have thus far been prevented from successfully again carrying their fight to our homeland. It is time to again extend our sympathies to the families and the victims, to salute those who placed themselves in harm's way, often at the risk of their lives, and to honor those who are involved in the struggle against terror. We state that this struggle is not a struggle against any people or faith. We assert that we will continue to do whatever is necessary to identify, intercept, and disrupt terrorists and their activities, and that we will neither forget the sacrifices of September 11 nor ever yield to terrorists and their ideologies. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 428) expressing the sincere gratitude of the House of Representatives to the foreign individuals, organizations, and governments that have offered material assistance and other forms of support to those who have been affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express the gratitude of the American people for the tremendously generous offers of support and expressions of condolences that have poured in from around the world to those who have been affected by Hurricane Katrina. Katrina will be remembered as one of the most catastrophic natural disasters to ever hit our shores. At this point, it would appear that thousands of victims, perhaps tens of thousands, have perished in our gulf coast region. Hundreds of thousands have been displaced without knowing where to go or how they will reestablish a permanent residence. Hundreds of thousands of jobs and businesses have been lost. Infrastructure has been destroyed. It will take years to rebuild these areas that were hit hardest by the hurricane. However, in spite of the dark hours which we witnessed during the storm and its immediate aftermath, the spirit and will of the people most affected are beginning to shine through as a result of the support which they have received from the American people and from our friends and neighbors around the world. Nearly 100 countries have offered over $1 billion in monetary and other forms of tangible assistance. Even Sri Lanka, horribly victimized by the recent tsunami, has generously offered assistance. Such gestures will not be forgotten. As Americans, we have a long record of providing humanitarian aid to many countries around the world that have suffered from natural and other disasters, but we have never found ourselves in this type of situation before. The compassionate offers of assistance from our global friends are welcome, and as reflected in this resolution, we accept them with heartfelt gratitude. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation before us: the most important postal reform of our generation. The specific reforms contained in the bill have been well described in the preceding comments of various members, but I would simply like to underscore the importance of the United States Postal Service to the country, particularly rural America, and emphasize the immense respect that citizens have for their mail carriers. The United States Postal Service began with the founding of the Republic; it grew as the nation grew; it has continuously transformed itself with entrepreneurial enterprise and technological innovation. Before Henry Ford developed mass assembly techniques in the automobile industry, mail carriers on horseback--the pony express--used analogous methods of passing along packages to next-step destinations. And just as rail cars added speed, labor- and horse-saving capabilities to mail delivery in the latter half of the 19th century, the airplane has provided the means to bring greater speed and service efficiency in the last century. Likewise, at the various decentralized post offices and more centralized postal hubs, innovative machinery to help sort and distribute the mail has been developed. But the unique aspect of mail delivery is that it remains a people- centric service. Good people make a difference and the Postal Service has a heritage of decency and quality of enlployee--from the clerk at the counter to the rural mail carrier to postmasters in small towns and urban centers. This country takes great pride in their dedication and professionalism. Now is not the time to either ideologically tamper with the private express statutes or saddle the Postal Service with liabilities developed by other parts of the government. The bottom line is that the United States Postal Service has served the country well for more than two centuries. We in the Congress respect this record and are obligated to ensure that the viability of this universal system is maintained.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, yesterday--notwithstanding numerous international humanitarian appeals, including several from Members of Congress and from the Executive Branch--the Government of Cambodia forcibly deported nearly 100 Montagnards to Vietnam, into uncertain circumstances where their well-being is not subject to effective international monitoring. Indeed, credible reporting by established nongovernmental organizations has documented recent cases in which Montagnard returnees were arrested and beaten after their repatriation. From a humanitarian vantage, the repatriation of Montagnard families in these circumstances was unacceptable, and was carried out to the discredit of both Cambodian authorities and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Two months ago, in a letter to UN High Commissioner Wendy Chamberlin, I and my Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific [Mr. Faleomavaega] raised the details of this very case, and expressed our deep concerns that this situation ``sets a dangerous precedent for refugee protection in Cambodia and elsewhere by lowering the standards for refugee repatriation.'' I ask that a copy of that May 4, 2005 letter be included in the Record. Sadly, the worst- case-scenario outlined in that letter came to pass yesterday mornmg; when the visibly distraught families were forced onto buses by Cambodian police, and sent back across the border to Vietnam. At this point, I believe that the international community bears the remedial burden of seeking robust, credible access to the Montagnard returnees to help ensure their well-being. I earnestly hope that the Government of Vietnam, in a tangible demonstration of the goodwill generated during the Prime Minister's visit to Washington last month, will favorably accommodate this request. Committee on International Relations, Washington, DC, May 4, 2005. Ms. Wendy Chamberlin, Acting High Commissioner for Refugees, United Nations High Commission for Refugees. Dear Ms. Chamberlin: We are writing to express our serious concerns about the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in January of this year by UNCHR, Cambodia, and Vietnam. In particular, we are concerned that the MOU does not ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to guarantee that refugee decisions are fully informed and voluntary, and does not provide UNHCR with unfettered access to returnees inside Vietnam. Accordingly, we urge the suspension of all repatriations of Montagnards to Vietnam until credible international monitoring of returnees is established in the Central Highlands. While the MOU commits Cambodia to provide temporary protection to Montagnard refugees and asylum seekers, we are troubled by ongoing reports of their forcible repatriation by Cambodian authorities. As you are likely aware, credible reports describe continuing persecution, repression, and mistreatment of Montagnards in Vietnam, including those who have returned from refugee camps in Cambodia. The fact that UNHCR has had no access to the 35 Montagnards repatriated to Vietnam under the MOU thus far is particularly problematic. More immediately, we are concerned for the welfare of the approximately 100 rejected asylum seekers in Cambodia, and urge that none of them be forced back to Vietnam in current circumstances. Against this background, we respectfully request that

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Water Resources Development Act, specifically the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway. This long overdue bill recommits the United States Government to the enhancement of our greatest national wonder--the Mississippi River basin. This national wonder is a kaleidoscope of beauty: birds, fish, fowl, the landscape of plains and valleys rolling into creeks, small rivers and other tributaries of a river that facilitates recreation as well as commerce. Our mightiest river demands our respect--for its beauty, for its sport, and not incidentally for its commerce. It is true that man has intruded with footprints on this river system with locks and dams. It is also true that these footprints have been restrained, particularly in relation to the commercial footprints that other transportation techniques have wrought in other environments. Indeed the introduction of a man-made channel has caused the river to be more hospitable to fish-life than that which existed when parts of the upper Mississippi were prone to persistent rapids and shallows. The maintenance of a constant channel has made possible more lake-like conditions for recreation boating and fishing. It has also made the Mississippi River basin part of world commerce. Indeed it has not only facilitated the marketing of grain to paying customers, but it has made possible the transfer of gifted grain to impoverished parts of the world to sustain lives that otherwise would have starved. Commerce, it must be understood, is not a four-letter word. Efficient transportation creates jobs. Barging grains, for instance, embellishes the livelihood of farm producers as it enables citizens of the world to be nourished. This bill which balances concern for the environment with realistic upgrading and maintenance of our lock and dam infrastructure deserves our support.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, with great respect for the two members who have offered this amendment, I rise in opposition to its content. What is at issue is whether we want a first or second class transportation infrastructure. The locks are designed to last at least fifty years. It is impossible to predict what goods will be transported up or down the river fifty years from now. Will it be corn or some new fiber that is either calorie or energy intensive? Will it be steel, aluminum, iron ore, fertilizer, or a refined corn or plastic product? Accordingly, I am extremely doubtful of capacity testing approaches that fit a couple year time frame which would put the future economic viability of the Midwest in jeopardy. Unlike the coasts with their spacious oceans--we are landlocked. The Mississippi River and its locks are our doors to the world. The question with the Blumenauer and Flake Amendment is whether these doors will be small or constraining or somewhat larger and more hospitable to commerce. There are environmental as well as humanitarian questions that must be pondered. To the surprise of some, the environmental and humanitarian case for somewhat larger locks is compelling. After all, all forms of transportation cause environmental disruption. But barges use less energy than other forms of transportation. Indeed, logically, upgrading our locks and dams should be part of the Energy bill. Barges are fuel efficient moving goods upstream; and when they travel downstream they are partly gravity driven. Gravity is analogous to cost free, solar energy. Barges, with their waves and physical interactions with the river cause interruptions with nature. But so do trucks, trains and airplanes, and it is quite possible that barges are the least nature-intrusive technique to move commercial goods. They are also the cheapest in many circumstances. At great risk, this Congress turns a cold shoulder to infrastructure investments that improve American competitiveness. As for the humanitarian issue, the great American breadbasket has provided food at minimal cost to the American people. It has also provided foodstuffs to a starving world. To trim the doors of commerce in food is to trim our humanitarian obligations to impoverished peoples throughout the world. Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the lock system of the Mississippi River is a vibrant part of the American transportation infrastructure. This is the first amendment that I have encountered in this body that suggests our infrastructure should be second rate. The history of this country has been one of opening, not closing, the heartland. That is why we built the Erie Canal. That is why we built the St. Lawrence Seaway. That is why we should not constrain the future and narrow the valves of our heartland's greatest artery.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor the accomplishments of Richard P. Cronin, a Specialist in Asian Affairs with the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service. Dr. Cronin is retiring after 30 years at CRS and is beginning a new position at the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington, DC. Over the past three decades, the Congress, and especially the Asia Pacific Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, has benefitted from Dr. Cronin's expertise, analysis, insights, and timely responses on a wide variety of political, security, and economic issues. Dr. Cronin's tenure spanned 15 Congresses and a succession of events in Asia that held important implications for U.S. interests. He was invited to testify before congressional committees and, in 1995, was seconded to the House Committee on International Relations. While there he not only facilitated a close working relationship between the Committee and CRS, but he worked on specific legislation and hearings that had far-reaching effects. He helped draft legislation that governed U.S. policy related to the North Korean nuclear program, was instrumental in forming legislative initiatives that sought to adjust the Pressler Amendment, and was the primary staff person responsible for hearings on South Asian security issues, the civil war in Sri Lanka, U.S. relations with South Korea, and U.S.-Japan security issues. Dr. Cronin has diligently sought comprehensive approaches to international problems. His Ph.D. in history and South Asian Studies from Syracuse University along with his Bachelor's degree in economics provided the foundation for him to address issues using methods that were multi-disciplinary and far reaching. While at CRS, he provided expert advice and analysis to Congress on countries, such as India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia, China, Iraq, and Somalia, and on the regions of South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Northeast Asia. Whether the topic was security, intelligence, the military, economics, terrorism, or politics, Dr. Cronin could address it with authority. Dr. Cronin also served as head of the Asia Section at CRS and where he supervised work for Congress on U.S. policy toward Asian countries. His supervision, guidance, and review of research projects contributed to the high quality of reports authored by other CRS analysts. He received numerous citations and special awards. In addition to his work for the Congress, Dr. Cronin taught courses at local universities and published extensively. He wrote a book, five chapters for other books, and twelve professional journal articles. He has also been invited to speak at numerous foreign policy seminars, panels, and conferences in Washington and around the world. Mr. Speaker, Congress has many dimensions. But no part of our body symbolizes professional analysis and the provision of non-partisan, academic perspective to public policy more than the Congressional Research Service. CRS enriches this institution; it adds a dimension of judgment that few outside the body understand. Dr. Cronin's career epitomizes why the Congressional Research Service has established the reputation it has and, on behalf of so many of my colleagues, I want to express my appreciation for his many contributions to the Congress and wish him well in his new position.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, at issue in the case of Colombia are priorities, but in a different sense than is usually assumed. The ``priority'' debate today is not about whether stemming the drug trade is appropriate, but the methodology of going about it. Military approaches fit war scenarios. Civil war is more problematic; criminal activities even more so. My concern is that when America enters into internal conflicts we change the nature of on-going struggles as well as the motivations of various combatants. We become implicitly accountable for a panoply of policies of any side we back and accordingly answerable to the people for that side's allegiance or lack thereof to social fairness and the rule of law itself. In this context, would it not be better to limit our military involvement in this struggling, divided country and focus our efforts instead on alternative crop production, democracy building programs and the effective prosecution of human rights abuses? And at home wouldn't we be better off emphasizing education to reduce the demand for drugs? Military involvement simply carries too many seeds of counterproductivity as well as the prospect of escalation if policies at one level of engagement prove insufficient. Accordingly, I support the amendment before us, not out of a conviction it is an adequate answer to a real dilemma for both of our societies, but out of a belief that more balanced social involvement holds a better prospect for more productive economic and social development in Colombia and hence more comprehensive drug curtailment through national law enforcement.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would only say to my distinguished chairman, I realize how difficult these circumstances are. There is one amendment in that en bloc circumstance, the Neugebauer amendment, that I think the House should be alerted to. It could put us down a slippery slope of reviewing peer review scientific approaches; and since it is targeted at a program in a university in my district, I am particularly sensitive to it. But unrelated to the fact that it is in my district, this subject is something that I hope in the conference will get the attention of Members in terms of the overriding principle of whether we ought to be political seers overriding scientific peers. Secondly, in the statement I will submit for the Record, I have outlined a reason for this particular grant that is, in my view, again very compelling, which makes a political attack on it quite, again in my view, uncompelling. So at this time, I simply ask respectfully that the chairman and the ranking member give this perspective serious consideration as you move to conference. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that sometimes committees decide to accept a series of amendments to bills ``en bloc'' on the House floor and then review them further in conference. In this circumstances, I rise to express a great disappointment that the committee has agreed to accept for the time being the Neugebauer amendment which represents a philosophical assault on the peer review process that serves as a hallowed barrier to scientific censorship. Mr. Chairman, the Neugebauer amendment is about exasperation with NIH research on non-humans--i.e., animals and birds--and targets a grant given a respected research institution in my District--the University of Iowa. First, let me stress that 60% of all human diseases are zoonotic-- that is, derived or related to animals and birds. It is no accident that the remarkable results that have been obtained in developing miracle drugs and intervention approaches in so many diseases begins with research on animals and birds. Secondly, let me stress that NIH and NIMH operate in a more non- politicized manner than other governmental entities. All their research approaches are peer-reviewed by scientists across the country. We in Congress authorize the appropriations for NIH and NIMH, but scientists rather than politicians determine which research applications should be funded. Science, in this sense, by Congressional directive, has largely been de-politicized. As for this specific grant, the pigeon has been selected to study because it has a remarkably well developed visual system with such high acuity that it can make extraordinary decisions without the mediation of language. The research, which focuses on how the pigeon discriminates between visual stimuli, could be singularly important to our understanding of how brains and mental processes operate. The knowledge garnered is designed to be of particular use in the treatment of mental illnesses and disorders like autism and schizophrenia. Knowledge of the operation of advanced cognitive processes in the absence of language can also provide important clues to possible remedial methods that could be effective with language impaired human patients. New thinking and teaching methods which may develop from research on pigeons and other life forms could better enable impaired individuals to interact with a world of complex patterns and categories, thus allowing them to be productive decision-makers, less likely to need institutionalization. Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate that research with birds and animals is critical for human health. The pigeon may seem an obscure subject, but the application of research on this bird, which is so talented it can find its way home even if transported and released thousands of miles away, could be quite meaningful. There is no certainty any research approach will be productive, but there is certainty that politicizing science will shackle its potential for lengthening and ennobling life. Accordingly, I urge the committee as it reviews this ``en bloc'' amendment in conference to give particular attention to whether it wants to establish a precedent of political ``seers'' overriding scientific peers. This is a slippery slope that I hope conferees will not slide down.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to offer this amendment with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). I would only stress of all the learning disciplines, the arts tap and expand the human imagination the most, and in a world of exploding options for individuals and families, it is imperative when there is no experience to serve as a guide, that the imagination be stimulated and perspectives be applied and that values be brought to bear. It appears that the children of 20th century America lost something when they became captives to passive education offered by advances in media, particularly television. If we can learn from our mistakes, an emphasis on hands-on efforts, particularly in the creative arts, should become a focal point of 21st century education. For most Americans, the arts are an optional endeavor. But for some, art is a principal means of self-expression and communication. For example, last month 17-year-old Patrick Henry Hughes won the VSA arts 2005 soloist award for his piano and vocal abilities. In an interview, he said, ``I am blind and I can't walk, but I don't let it stop me. I actually love the life I am living. If I have a sad moment, I go to the piano and get happy again.'' We must ensure that every young person with a disability has access to arts learning experiences. VSA arts, which are part of the Arts in Education programming eliminated in this bill, provides opportunities for children and adults with disabilities and stimulates millions of people, like Patrick Hughes, helping to transform their otherwise frustrating world into one that is more beautiful and purposeful. Mr. Chairman, the arts are not a luxury, they are the soul of society.

Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from New York. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend for yielding me this time. I would like to just take a moment to discuss what might seem esoteric, that is a definitional issue. The word ``public'' means ``of or pertaining to the whole community.'' I mention this because public broadcasting is not intended to be a reflection of the views of any government. It is not government broadcasting we are talking about; it is public broadcasting. That was made clear when Congress created this particular program that so many of Americans hear and feel every day of their lives. Public broadcasting simply was not to be the microphone of the government. Perspectives reflected are expected to be honest and of the highest quality, hopefully reflecting a variety of views. But all governments, Republican or Democratic, all government officials, left, right and center, should expect to be criticized and find views reflected that they do not agree with. It is simply better for society to have a questioning, skeptical press and, most particularly, a skeptical, questioning public broadcasting system than one that is slavishly supportive of any perspective, especially a perspective that might be considered a government one. Here, all of us have heard a lot of criticism of public broadcasting, particularly journalists like Bill Moyers and Dan Schorr. Let me say, I do not think either would consider themselves a card-carrying arch- conservative. But the fact of the matter is that there have probably been no journalists in the last several generations who have uplifted public discourse more than these two men. We, all of us, will not agree with anything or everything that they say, but we certainly can respect them. Let me end for the moment with the notion that public broadcasting is about increasing the civility level of public discourse. It is also about increasing the appreciation level for the American arts. I cannot think of any publicly funded endeavor that has done more for uplifting what we consider to be the values that underpin public policy rather than simply reflect perspectives on public policy itself. I cannot think of any publicly funded endeavor that has done more to bring out the best in the American arts. And so I would strongly urge my colleagues to reflect that these institutions of the Public Broadcasting System deserve our respect and our support.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I think by perspective we should understand that there is no possibility all Americans can agree all the time or appreciate equally all aspects of the American arts. But what we all can do is respect honesty and quality and first amendment rights. And it is these qualities exercised in an uplifting, nondivisive way that public broadcasting symbolizes. So I again urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to speak to the broader subject for a moment. At issue clearly before this body is our problem with the U.N., and there is near consensus on both sides of this subject. At issue also is the manner in which reform is to take place, and here there is a difference of judgment. The deepest question before this body is whether we want to abide by the rule of law as we attempt to advance a new regime of law. And here we all have to recognize that the U.N. Charter, a treaty binding on all parties, including the United States, provides that, and I quote, ``expenses of the organization shall be borne by the members as apportioned by the General Assembly.'' In 1962, the International Court of Justice held, sustaining a position of the United States, that apportionment of expenses by the General Assembly creates the obligation of each member to bear that part of the expenses apportioned to it. The bill before us presumptuously implies that the United States is free from an international obligation to pay its assessments. This position runs counter to elemental principles of international law. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, for instance, provides that ``every treaty in force is binding on the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.'' It further specifies that ``a State party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of internal law as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations.'' This body has every reason to direct the executive branch to attempt to initiate the compelling list of reform proposals contained in this bill, but this domestic lawmaking body does not embellish its reputation by refusing to honor our country's treaty commitments. Violating the Law of Nations is neither an appropriate nor effective technique to express exasperation with the United Nations. The goals of this legislation are thoroughly laudable, but we must all understand that the framework we adopt to advance them puts us on trial.