The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“RECEPTION OF FORMER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H3071-H3079 on May 21, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
RECEPTION OF FORMER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
The Speaker of the House presided.
The SPEAKER. On behalf of this Chair and this Chamber, it is a high honor and distinct personal privilege to have the opportunity of welcoming so many of our former Members and colleagues as may be present here for this occasion. We all welcome you.
The Chair at this time would recognize the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], who may well be on the way. We were in session until 4 this morning. Many of you remember with fondness those particular events.
Let the Chair proceed out of order, if he might. Since the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], the Democratic nominee, is here, the Chair will recognize him prior to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
The Chair would say after a 4 o'clock session, Mr. Hoyer does deserve a small round of applause for being here on time.
Mr. HOYER. I know that all of you lamented the fact that you were not Members of the Congress of the United States last night, and you remember fondly those 3 o'clock in the morning sessions that we had, and you thought to yourself, what a great institution this is.
I want to say that I am pleased to be here. Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to be here with you. Last night was reminiscent of the first 100 days of the Contract With America, where it seemed to me we never stopped meeting.
Mr. Speaker?
He is not listening. That is typical of what we Democrats, the kind of respect we get around this House nowadays.
I was pressed into service by a power even greater than the Speaker's. Charlie Johnson, our Parliamentarian, asked me to be here this morning, and he asked me at 3 o'clock in the morning, a particularly unfriendly request, I thought.
But all of us spend a lot of money not to join your ranks. Senator Beall and my predecessor, Carlton Sickles, who held this seat, and I am so glad to welcome back my good friend and colleague, Bev Byron from Maryland. We have a number of Marylanders. Too many of them are former Members. I am not going to mention all of your names. But Lindy Boggs, I think probably only Bev Byron and Lindy Boggs have known me since long before I went to law school even.
I am pleased to be here with you and welcome all of you back. It must be a great experience to come back and be with your colleagues. This is an incredibly wonderful institution. We kid about it. Obviously, there are tough times. You saw last night, I think, a demonstration of that.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your remarks last night, which I thought were very appropriate. The President, the Speaker, the Democrats, and the Republicans in the House, coming together to try to pass a budget that nobody really thought was the budget they would have selected, clearly, but it was a budget that obviously a very large number of folks, indeed, I think only 99 voted against it, felt was in the best interests of our country.
I see Larry Hogan, another one of my predecessors. Unlike Glenn, he is still constrained to sit on that side of the aisle. Old habits die hard, right, Larry?
As a matter of fact, Larry's son ran against me just a few years ago, now that I think of it.
This institution, of course, generates, I think, incredibly strong friendships among us on either side of the aisle, and although there is a great deal of partisanship that has been reflected over the last few years, more than when I first came, which I think is lamentable personally, nevertheless, I think that as the newer Members get here, the longer they are here, the less partisan they become; not necessarily, as all of you have experienced, less convicted of the principles with which they came, but less convinced that the folks who do not agree with them are not good Americans as well.
I think those of you who are former Members are not Republican former Members or Democratic former Members, but former Members who contributed greatly to your country, to your districts certainly, and your States, but to this institution as well. On behalf of Dick Gephardt and David Bonior and Vic Fazio and the rest of the leadership, I am very, very pleased to welcome you back and to thank you for the shoulders on which we try to serve as well as you did.
Thank you very much.
The SPEAKER. I want to note for the distinguished gentleman from Maryland that the Parliamentarian arrived during his talk, but shortly after his notice of the IOU that the Parliamentarian owes him, so the Parliamentarian should at some point be reminded of this institutional obligation.
Let the Chair, on behalf of the majority, just say several things. First of all, the point that Mr. Hoyer made about all of us in a very real sense standing on your shoulders is literally true, partly because you trained us.
I think back to working with Mrs. Boggs on the restoring of the House project. I think about times I worked with Chairman Tom Bevill as he put together the various water projects that we worked on together. I think of how much I learned from my very first leader, John Rhodes, and how much more I learned from Bob Michel.
I can tell Bob in particular that there were several times yesterday when we were in the middle of an exciting vote, in an effort that ran from about 2 o'clock yesterday afternoon until 3 o'clock this morning, that I thought of the number of times that you had made a decision and decided to live it out, and you did not really know for sure whether you would win or lose, but you knew it was better to go ahead and stick to it once you had done it than it was to spend a whole lot of energy worrying about it. We worried a tad during the evening, but we ended up winning 216 to 214 in a magnificent show of bipartisanship.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, excuse me for interfering. I did not know he was here, but in 1962 there was a House Member, and his office was next to Otis Pike's, and there was this young kid at the University of Maryland that wanted to get into politics. So he came to his office and he volunteered, and he ran a robo machine and then did that doggone machine that you did the newsletters on, that you got so dirty that you would never get the ink off, I thought. And that fellow is here. I worked for him for the last year I was at the University of Maryland and for 3 years at Georgetown Law School. He was responsible, very frankly, not only for my being able to go to law school but for the fact, I think, that I am here. Dan Brewster, former U.S. Senator from our State.
The SPEAKER. I appreciate the gentleman's intervention. I would say I can hardly give you a better example of the point you were making and I am trying to reinforce. Literally, there is an organic chain of being that goes back to the very founding of this Congress, and in that sense we owe all of you a debt for having helped create the institution.
The other thing I would say to you: We need your help. This institution, like virtually every institution in America, is changing. Many of you were here before C-SPAN. At least a few of you were here before we went to electronic recording of votes, and you know the institution was different when you had to stay on the floor long enough to get through the rollcall. You know that the whole social interaction was different.
We are changing in many ways. I arrived at the very beginning of the C-SPAN era. Beginning in January 1995, we began to move toward putting the Congress on line. You can now access it through the Thomas System as well as a variety of other systems.
When I announced in a 1-minute last Friday that the budget agreement would be available on the Internet literally before GPO could print it, in the first hour after my 1-minute speech there were 10,000 connections with the site that had the budget agreement. People all over the country were getting it for free. They did not have to have a lobbyist; they did not have to have a subscription to a fancy service.
However, the core of the institution, I think, has probably not changed since the Continental Congress or since the various assemblies of the colonies. Human beings have to come together from different places, each empowered by their citizens, each bringing their hopes, their dreams, their personalities, their idiosyncracies. They have to gradually find a way to work together, because if you can't, you can't get 218 votes and you can't get anything done. It is as frustrating, confusing, and human as it was in the very beginning.
I think all of you can continue to serve your country and help all of us to the degree you can find the time, whether in a classroom or a civic club or in the news media, to explain and educate about this complex, frustrating, and difficult process.
We have to get the country to understand that at the heart of the process of freedom is not the Presidential press conference, it is the legislative process; it is the give and take of independently elected, free people coming together to try to create a better product by the friction of their passions and by the friction of their ideas.
Each of you, having lived it, having been there, having been here at 4 o'clock in the morning, having been in the conference committees, having been in the subcommittees, having been in the hearings, each of you can do an immense amount to help younger Americans learn that this is the inevitable process by which freedom survives and renews itself.
In that sense, I think that this 27th annual meeting of the U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress is a patriotic meeting and that you serve a patriotic service.
Last year, I was very proud when you honored my leader, Bob Michel, with your Distinguished Service Award. This year, you are going to recognize a gentleman who has gone on to serve his country in new and even more famous ways, although I doubt if he will travel much more as the U.N. Ambassador than he did as a Member of Congress, because he set the alltime record for one-man delegations to weird and obscure places. But Bill Richardson certainly has earned the Distinguished Service Award by the act of distinguished service, and I am glad you are doing that.
Now it is my great honor to request the past president of the Association to take this chair, the gentlewoman from Louisiana, Lindy Boggs.
Mrs. BOGGS (presiding). Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is an honor, of course, to be here to preside over this historic meeting. I am very, very pleased to be here.
The Clerk will now call the roll of former Members of Congress.
The Clerk called the roll of the former Members of Congress, and the following former Members answered to their names:
Rollcall of Former Members of Congress Attending 27th Annual Spring
Meeting, May 21, 1997
William V. (Bill) Alexander of Arkansas;
Chester G. Atkins of Massachusetts;
J. Glenn Beall, Jr., of Maryland;
Tom Bevill of Alabama;
James H. Bilbray of Nevada;
Lindy Boggs of Louisiana;
Daniel B. Brewster of Maryland;
William Broomfield of Michigan;
Donald G. Brotzman of Colorado;
Glenn Browder of Alabama;
Clarence J. Brown of Ohio;
James T. Broyhill of North Carolina;
Jack Buechner of Missouri;
Clair W. Burgener of California;
Beverly B. Byron of Maryland;
Elford A. Cederberg of Michigan;
Charles E. Chamberlain of Michigan;
Barbara Rose Collins of Michigan;
William C. Cramer of Florida;
Robert W. Daniel, Jr., of Virginia;
E (Kika) de la Garza of Texas;
Ron de Lugo of Virgin Islands;
Joseph J. Dioguardi of New York;
John N. Erlenborn of Illinois;
Marvin L. Esch of Michigan;
Louis Fry, Jr., of Florida;
Robert Garcia of New York;
Robert N. Giaimo of Connecticut;
Robert A. Grant of Indiana;
Gilbert Gude of Maryland;
Robert P. Hanrahan of Illinois;
Dennis M. Hertel of Michigan;
Lawrence J. Hogan of Maryland;
Margorie Holt of Maryland;
Elizabeth Holtzman of New York;
John W. Jenrette, Jr., of South Carolina;
Don Johnson of Georgia;
Hastings Keith of Massachusetts;
David S. King of Utah;
Herb Klein of New Jersey;
Dan H. Kuykendall of Tennessee;
Peter N. Kyros of Maine;
Lawrence P. ``Larry'' La Rocco of Idaho;
Norman F. Lent of New York;
Jim Lloyd of California;
Cathy Long of Louisiana;
Romano L. Mazzoli of Kentucky;
James A. McClure of Idaho;
Lloyd Meeds of Washington;
Robert H. Michel of Illinois;
Clarence E. Miller of Ohio;
John S. Monagan of Connecticut;
G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery of Mississippi;
Frank E. Moss of Utah;
James L. Nelligan of Pennsylvania;
Stanford E. Parris of Virginia;
Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island;
Shirley N. Pettis of California;
J.J. Pickle of Texas;
Otis G. Pike of New York;
Richardson Preyer of North Carolina;
Joel Pritchard of Washington;
Bill Richardson of New Mexico;
John J. Rhodes of Arizona;
John J. Rhodes III, of Arizona;
Matthew J. Rinaldo of New Jersey;
Paul G. Rogers of Florida;
Toby Roth of Wisconsin;
Philip E. Ruppe of Michigan;
Marty Russo of Illinois;
George E. Sangmeister of Illinois;
Harold S. Sawyer of Michigan;
James H. Scheuer of New York;
Richard T. Schulze of Pennsylvania;
Phil Sharp of Indiana;
Carlton R. Sickles of Maryland;
Jim Slattery of Kansas;
Neal E. Smith of Iowa;
Al Swift of Washington;
James W. Symington of Missouri;
Charles W. Whalen, Jr., of Ohio;
George C. Wortley of New York;
Beryl Anthony of Arkansas;
Richard Chrysler of Michigan;
Ronald Coleman of Texas;
Lane Evans of Illinois;
Harry Haskell of Delaware;
William Hathaway of Maine;
Bill Lowery of California;
Paul McCloskey of California;
Howard Pollick of Alaska.
Mrs. BOGGS. The Clerk has reported that 80 Members are present, so we will call this session together.
It is now my tremendous pleasure to present the innovative, highly successful, intelligent, hard working president of the Former Members of Congress Association, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Frey.
(Mr. FREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FREY. Madam Speaker, where were you when I was running for Governor?
Mrs. BOGGS. Mr. Frey is recognized to give a report on his presidency and the work of the association in the past year.
Mr. FREY. Madam Speaker, thank you for those kind introductory remarks. They are obviously deeply appreciated.
All of us are pleased and honored to have this opportunity once again to be on the House floor to present the 27th annual report to the Congress. I want to thank the Speaker, Newt Gingrich, the minority leader, all Members of the Congress, and the gentleman from Maryland. Thank goodness there were not any more people from Maryland here; we would not have gotten to the meeting, I do not think.
Madam Speaker, this association is in its 27th year since its inception, has over 600 members and an annual budget in excess of
$700,000, which is going to reach this year probably close to $1 million. We are a bipartisan, or probably more correctly a nonpartisan, organization, united by the knowledge it was a unique privilege to serve in the Congress and also with the understanding that we have an obligation to continue to give back to this country which has done so much for each and every one of us.
Certainly it is an interesting time to serve in the Congress but is also an interesting time to be involved with the Association of Former Members, which has really changed significantly over the last number of years. What started out as basically an alumni association has changed into an organization that has taken on more and more government-related tasks and has developed, in accordance with its charter, a number of programs, both domestic and international, to promote the improved understanding of Congress as an institution and representative democracy as a system of government.
There are probably several reasons for the dynamic change. The first is that fewer and fewer people are serving longer and longer in Congress, some by chance and some by choice. So people are leaving Congress. Some go on and serve in key positions, such as, obviously, the Vice President, or Tim Wirth. Many of our former Members have served in key positions, but many are still looking for something to do, something to do in the public service area, and this organization gives them that chance.
Also, and the Speaker mentioned it, our institutions are under attack. Just this week there was a new book that trashed the Congress and said everybody who served here was basically either a sexist or stupid or both, I am not sure in what order, and it is obviously by people who have never been in combat as such, always the guy on the side lines. But it is the thing to do. It is really easy to do.
As we travel around, I think we find that those of us who have nothing to gain or are not running for political office, who really love this place, in some ways have a certain degree of credibility for those of us in politics that maybe does not exist anyplace else, and I think it is important that we do get out to the colleges and campuses, as we have done.
It is a difficult time to serve in public office, but this institution and what we have been given here is absolutely fundamental to the freedom that this country has. We haven't been free all that long. We are the longest lasting democracy, but it hasn't been all that long, and it isn't because we have been lucky, it is because people have worked at it, people of both parties who sincerely care about this country.
One other reason this organization is becoming more and more needed is the demand for time. Late sessions obviously, but a Congressperson has so much to do, and there is so much media, so much need to educate. We are always on call. Sitting out here is more knowledge probably than in any place in this country, people who know more about issues and worked on them than anyplace else. It is an incredible asset for this Nation that we have and all of us have.
I think, lastly, more than anything else, we are all united by a true love of this institution. I think the word ``privilege'' to me is the word that describes how I feel about this, and I know how each and every one of you feel about it.
In a minute I am going to yield to various Members who have done and been involved in certain areas to let them tell you a little bit about what it is and let the people out there listening understand more about us, but because of a scheduling problem in terms of the need to get to a couple meetings and probably rescue some hostages, we are going to move out of order a little bit and give our distinguished service award. We do that each year to someone in the country who we think just epitomizes what is best about the Congress and being a public servant. Last year, of course, that was our former minority leader, Bob Michel. It was wonderful again to see Bob here.
We rotate it from the Republicans to the Democrats.
This year is a Democrat recipient, and of course it is the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, the Honorable Bill Richardson. Bill was elected seven times from his district, I guess served seven full terms before the President appointed him on December 13, 1996. As Ambassador, he is a member of the President's cabinet, a member of the National Security Council, and, of course, as a Member of the U.S. Congress, he held one of the highest ranking positions in the House Democratic leadership.
I think we also know that even though he was not the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, he was somebody who probably was doing the job before he got it. He was all over the world, rescuing hostages, helping, really serving as just a tremendous part of U.S. foreign policy.
In 1996, he held a historic meeting with Cuba's Fidel Castro, during which he successfully negotiated the release of three political prisoners and got visas for their families.
I think all of us who know Bill and who served with him and know him knows he has tremendous energy, he is highly intelligent, he is uncompromisingly honest and he truly represents what is best in a public servant. I know all of you share my feelings of respect and admiration for Ambassador Richardson. I would appreciate it if he would come forward now to receive the award.
Time out for glasses. It reads, I think, ``Presented to the Honorable Bill Richardson for exemplary service to the Nation, including seven terms as U.S. Representative for the Third District of New Mexico, numerous humanitarian and diplomatic special assignments, and his current service as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Washington, DC, May 21, 1997.''
Bill, there is also a scrapbook of letters from your friends, which there is a lot more we have got to add to it, but you are obviously respected and loved, and we are just so proud to be able to give you this award.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Marty Russo said he would start chiding me if I went over 2 minutes.
Thank you very much. This is a great honor for me, especially when I see so many friends. I served 14 years in the House, and I think I have served with about 70 percent of you, and the Speaker made a little joke about congressional travel. But really, in my 14 years, I felt that through this travel is where you get to know people from both sides of the aisle, where true bipartisanship, and they had this Hershey conference on civility. As I recall, whenever we bonded together on some of these trips, and I see Clinger back there and my wife saying to me that she found Democratic and Republican wives people that she could relate to, and she could not understand why there were such differences between the two parties, when as Americans we were very much together.
Let me just say that at the United Nations, it is a challenge. But if I brought some skills to the United Nations, they were skills that I learned right here as a Member of the House, skills of negotiating, of relating to each other, of doing the thousands of town meetings that many of us have done. This is where you learn to negotiate and deal with people and cut deals and relate and extricate things from somebody else. At the same time, the camaraderie, the collegiality we had as Members, is something that I know we will never forget.
So I am very humbled in getting this award. I want you to know that public housing is existing well at the Waldorf Towers in New York. You are all most welcome to come. We have a lot of bedrooms. As former Members of Congress, I can assure you, you will be treated just as well as any member of the President's Cabinet.
So in accepting this award, let me say that it is most gracious of you to give it to me. Regrettably, I have to go back to New York for a Security Council meeting which will deal with sanctions on Libya. It is a skill, as I said, in terms of my committee assignments, the work that we did together, that I have learned with you.
So I look forward to being active in this organization. I noticed early on my name was not called, so that means I probably have to pay some dues. But to all of you, if I do not get a chance to see and hug each one of you, and I know because of the schedule we will not be able to, I want you to know that I remember one incident about each and every one of you that is lodged in my being and my heart, that is a good one. And whether I made funny noises at you or whether we had a chance to do something together, that is something that I will always cherish.
To Lou Frey, thanks for that very nice introduction. To all of you, I mean it, New York, the Waldorf, the U.N., I hope we get a chance to visit again.
Thank you so much.
Mr. FREY. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for those kind remarks, and good luck at the Security Council.
As I indicated before, a number of Members have been involved in various activities, and what I would like to do is yield to some of the Members to briefly describe what they have done and what they have taken part in.
As I indicated, the association has provided opportunities for the Members to share their congressional experiences overseas. In the past we have had 16 study groups that have been carried out through the country and throughout the world. I would like to yield, if he is here, to the gentleman from Missouri, Jack Buechner, who will talk about a trip he and Congressman Hertel took to Africa in October of 1966. Is he here? Two demerits. His dues get doubled.
Here he is. I just was warming up. It is all yours.
Mrs. BOGGS. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Buechner, is recognized.
Mr. BUECHNER. Thank you for yielding, Mr. President, and fellow former Members. It is good to be here back in the well. It has been a long time. Let me take this off, because it is bad for the camera, if you remember that.
I am trying to make this brief, but I have to tell you, taking a trip with Dennis Hertel and encapsulating it in a few minutes is a pretty tough task, because Dennis loves to talk to people. We went to Zimbabwe. The U.S. Information Agency sent us there ostensibly to talk about the Presidential elections in United States.
But once we got there, they said you know, this is a one-party state, and they always say that the U.S. political system is the same, because there is not a nickel's worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. We probably disagree about that, but our goal was to sharply define the differences between the two parties.
So in the political game, we always try to talk about our colleagues and that we agree on this and disagree on that and agree to disagree. But Dennis and I went at it hammer and tongs, including the national broadcast that we had. We had their top anchorman interview us, or moderate the debate at the U.S. Information Agency's offices, went throughout the country, and Dennis and I tried to as sharply define the differences between the two political Presidential campaigns and the candidates as possible. We really had a great time, probably maybe leaning to the extremes on issues to define the differences.
The most interesting thing was that wherever we went, and we had probably five different occasions with legislators, parliamentarians, with Cabinet officials, with university professors and students, we went and met with them, I just want to close because I know the time is limited, that we had a great time, we pointed out that there was a difference between the parties and between the candidates, and that in the United States there was an opportunity for this difference to be shown to the American public, and that was very good for us and it was good for those people in Zimbabwe that were trying to promote a pluralistic society.
But one of the things that always came up was, people were asking us why we were picking as a country on poor old Fidel Castro. And at one of these occasions, all of a sudden Dennis remarked about what a thug that Castro was, and that there were no multi-parties and freedom of political participation in Cuba, and he went on saying that if Castro was such a great guy, how come he did not do this and did not allow travel, and he went through these things.
Afterwards, I said, ``You know, Dennis, I did not know you were that really philosophically opposed to Fidel Castro.'' He said, ``I do not give a damn about Fidel Castro, but I am getting tired of being picked on.''
So we expressed our individualism and our political partisanship. We had a wonderful time, and I think the U.S. Information Agency said the former Members of Congress did as good a job of letting people in a part of the world that is very interested in the transition to democracy, especially following upon South Africa and building upon that, and this is something I would encourage you to do.
I want to remind you, we flew coach. It is a 25-hour portal-to-portal trip. It is not for the faint of heart. But I have to tell you, Dennis Hertel managed to speak to everybody that he met for long periods of time, and he spent more time being a former Member of Congress than I did. I slept and read a lot.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. FREY. I would now like to yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland, Beverly Byron, to talk about the trip to China in September 1996 and the result of the trip. The former Members paid their own international travel costs, and the costs in China were paid by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National People's Congress.
Mrs. BOGGS. The gentlewoman from Maryland, Mrs. Byron, is recognized.
Mrs. BYRON. Let me say that, Lou, I have to have this side of the aisle, I am sorry. I cannot speak from the other side. It just does not work. It is like church and the movies; you know which side you are comfortable on.
Let me say that we were able to pull together a delegation of 10 former Members, of 4 spouses, 2 daughters, no animals, to meet in Beijing in September of last year, and we began a 10-day study tour of China at the invitation of their Foreign Affairs Committee.
This group of former Members, many of whom had been in China before, were able to gain a great deal of comparison with the previous visits. Prior to the trip, we held briefings with the State Department, the Foreign Affairs Committee staff of the House, and received many, many pages of background material.
While we were in Beijing, we held meetings with the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, our host, Zhu Liang, and since he stated that since launching a reform campaign, economic development is China's first priority. The United States position is still one China. That was discussed on numerous occasions. That has not changed.
We will see the magical date of July 1, 1997, approaching, and the world will be looking at the transfer of Hong Kong and how China handles the current vibrant, economically stable city that is presently there.
A second meeting was held with the chairman of the standing committee, and that was a discussion on the public influence in the United States of the press, and it is important to have a continuing dialog. It was discussed that an exchange program should begin between our two countries.
The Vice Premier, Minister of Foreign Affairs Qian Qichen, stated, and this is rather interesting, that China must be economically stable to have a peaceful world. As this body begins its discussion in the next few weeks on most-favored-nation status for China and the vote is taken next month, I quote the Vice Premier. Human rights have improved greatly since 1940.
That is 56 years.
He also stated, but China's leaders are working on correcting a number of areas.
It will be interesting to see what areas.
Ambassador Sasser and his DCM were extremely helpful with us, and we had in-depth briefings with his country team.
The remainder of the trip was outside Beijing. We went to Xian, where the Provisional People's Congress were our host. They talked about trade and education. There are 47 universities and 10 military academies in Xian alone. Shanghai, which was a municipality, was our host.
Much of the discussion was on foreign trade, with $48 million spent last year, $8 million with the United States, and last September there were 15,000 joint ventures, of which 1,700 were with U.S. companies.
We were able to export a little bit of the U.S. culture when Carlton Sickles gave us a rendition on his miniature harmonica and Nancy Schulze and Judy Brewster belted forth with ``Edelweis.'' I am not sure how the German exchange program song sheet got with us, but it did.
We moved on to Quilin, and there we were able to see the sister city of Orlando, FL, even to the fireworks that they held as we were on board a riverboat. This city is visited by 8 million Chinese visitors a year and a half a million from overseas. Much of the discussions were on environmental, water, electric issues, and they were very pleased to talk about their new airport that was to open in the next week which will give 10 times the capacity of the current airport.
Several members of our delegation did some in-depth research on medical issues and, at every point and turn in the visit, tried acupuncture. I will let them report that on their own.
As a result of our trip, I think it is the intent of this organization, the former Members, to create and encourage sponsorship of an exchange program of the U.S. Congress and the Nation's People's Congress. The board of directors has approved this, and we are going to be looking to fund that.
We have a delegation report that has been filed with various Members of the House and the State Department. Were it not for Lou Frey and Linda Reed, this trip would not have been possible, and I want to thank them and look forward to many more of this group that is before us today taking part in such an exchange.
Thank you.
Mr. FREY. I thank the gentlewoman. She is chairman of the committee to work on this with a number of the people who went on the trip, so we certainly appreciate that.
I would next like to yield to the former president of the association, who really put together a trip through the Ford Foundation to Cuba. One of the things I think we found is that there are times that we, as former Members, can do things relatively unofficially that it is difficult for sitting Members to do, and maybe this Cuban trip was one of them.
So the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Symington.
Mrs. BOGGS. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Symington, is recognized for his remarks.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Madam Speaker, Mr. FMC President Frey, thank you.
The week of December 9 to 15, 1996, I was privileged to join three other former Members and two then sitting Members of Congress on a bipartisan fact-finding trip to Cuba.
The delegation of three Democrats and three Republicans consisted of our association president, Lou Frey of Florida, as its chairman, myself as co-chairman, Mike Barnes of Maryland, Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Toby Roth of Wisconsin, and Jon Christensen of Nebraska.
Our very full schedule of visits and appointments, arranged in part privately and in part via the Cuban Government, brought us together with ordinary people, students, academicians, church leaders, political dissidents, industrialists, Government officials, members of the diplomatic corps, and the U.S. intercession. For these contacts and opportunities, we were indebted to our very able association consultant, Walter Raymond, and to the good offices of a former Cuban hand, retired Ambassador Timothy Towell, who advanced and accompanied us on this trip.
We were well briefed prior to the visit by the State Department and National Security Council; Mr. Eizenstat, the President's Special Envoy on Cuban Affairs; leaders of the Cuban-American communities; and Members of Congress and key legislative aides. Upon return, we were debriefed by these same individuals and offices and particularly the chairman of the House foreign affairs committee, international affairs committee, Ben Gilman, and the ranking member, Lee Hamilton, and their staffs. Our recommendations were placed in the Record by Mr. Hamilton.
Briefly, they reflected the consensus of this group that, first, the lives and prospects of the Cuban people are still, as my fellow Missourian, Mr. Buechner, intimated, under rigid government control; and, second, that a policy of selective engagement would prove more effective in diminishing those rigidities than one of unremitting isolation and sanctions.
We specifically recommended the permitting of food and other humanitarian assistance, properly handled, without the present obstacles to travel and shipment. The Cuban people themselves, including those in endangered opposition, when given the opportunity, expressed the hope that Americans would soon return in great numbers on business or vacation or both. The larger questions thus raised remain before our Government and Congress for review and consideration.
Thank you very much.
Mr. FREY. Thank you, Mr. Symington.
C-SPAN was nice enough to cover it. We had a press conference. We came back and were surprised. We thought four or five people would show up. We had about 70. National press was there. There is obvious continued press interest in this, which shows you how effective we can be.
Next I would like to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Toby Roth, who will talk about our Congressional Study Group on Germany which is funded primarily by the German Marshall Fund, and the Congressional Study Group in Japan funded by the Japanese-United States Friendship Commission.
Mrs. BOGGS. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. ROTH. Thank you, Madam Speaker and Mr. President. It is great to be here this morning with you.
You and I share a distinguished place in American history in that we were fortunate, all of us, to serve in the U.S. Congress. And I think I know everyone in the room here this morning. I want to say it has been a real honor to serve with you, and I think of you often.
Madam Speaker and Mr. President, I am delighted to thank you, the former Members of Congress, for the possibility of the two superbly managed study groups we have, one in Germany and one in Japan. I have had firsthand knowledge on the value of the Congressional Study Group on Germany. Last year I was with our congressional delegation when we visited Bonn. We met with Members of the Bundestag, the people in the Government, Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel, statesmen like Graf Otto von Lambsdorff, and many other prominent Germans in the Government. I do not have to tell you, the former Members of Congress, how valuable these exchanges are.
This year we had another delegation visit to Germany, and, of course, we look forward to working with the German delegations when they visit us here in the United States.
The study group has sponsored 14 annual seminars and other meetings and has involved more than 100 congressional participants with our counterparts in the German Bundestag in various discussions. Ongoing activities with the study group include, for example, the one on Germany is sponsoring annual seminars involving Members of the U.S. Congress and their counterparts in the German Bundestag, conducting a hospitality program at the U.S. Capitol right here for distinguished guests from Germany, arranging for members of the Bundestag to visit congressional delegates' districts with the Members of Congress.
I do not have to reiterate to you again how vital and important these activities are for the parliamentarians of both countries.
The study group on Japan has some 70 Members of the Congress. The objectives of the study group are to develop a congressional forum for the sustained analysis of policy options on major issues in United States.-Japan relations and to increase opportunities for Members of Congress to meet with their counterparts in the Japanese Diet for frank discussions of those key issues.
The end of the cold war has profoundly changed the way governments have been reacting and making decisions and reacting to events, but you, the former Members of Congress, know better than anyone else that no report, no Internet, no briefing can substitute for face-to-face meetings.
I thank you, the former Members of Congress, for your commitment and dedication to these two outstanding programs.
Mr. FREY. Thank you.
I think it is important to note that under the rules of financing and many of the rules of the House, the former Members fill a vacuum for a service that cannot be done in the House. So we really are instrumental to keep these programs alive, and we are looking at other programs with other countries to do this.
Now I would like to yield to the gentleman from Michigan, I do not know if it is the better or worse half of that dynamic duo, Dennis Hertel, to talk about our program in the Ukraine.
Mrs. BOGGS. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Hertel, is recognized.
Mr. HERTEL. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
First I would like to offer my congratulations to our chairperson as the Ambassador to the Vatican and the first woman from the United States to be appointed to that post to represent our Nation.
Mr. FREY. You stole my closing line, but that is all right.
Mr. HERTEL. I really do want to thank the staff of this association for all they have done. Linda Reed has done yeoman's work. There are so many things they can accomplish with so very few people and limited dollars. And Walt Raymond, who, as staff always do, has assisted me in preparing this report on our Ukrainian program. It is our broadest program.
The association has been supporting a parliamentary democracy program for the past 3 years in the Ukraine. The Ukraine was selected for its vital importance to the region. A free and independent Ukraine favorably changes the political situation in the region and enhances European security.
Our program of support of the Ukrainian Parliament was initiated in March 1994. Cliff Downen, a former senior staffer, has been our field representative. In his first year, he focused primarily as an adviser on basic parliamentary practices, including rules of procedure, committee processes, how to draft a bill, transparency, and related subjects.
Several former Members and Bill Brown, our former Parliamentarian, also visited Kiev to help the Ukrainians in the first phase. Now we have moved on to provide key staff to their parliament and key research papers to their various committees, including the chairmen that are working on reforms there.
These activities were the heart of our program in the second year. We brought in 35 Ukrainian interns who were competitively selected to represent a broad geographic cross-section of the country. Finally, now in the last year, we are supporting 45 young Ukrainians in the Parliament, over half of which are women.
We have established with the leadership a better working relationship so that now, for 1997-98, we can increase the number of interns to establish a provincial program in at least three of their state governments in the Ukraine to expand significantly on support for research and analysis, and the latter is designed to follow up after the end of the congressional research program in the Ukraine, which has provided computers and related equipment and established the basis for a reference service.
When we see the controversy and the great issues and problems facing the Ukraine and all the Soviet Union, former Soviet Union, we see how important this program has been and how well it has been supported by the members of the association.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FREY. Thank you for that report.
We have done this in some of the other former Iron Curtain countries, Slovakia, some of the others. We sent people over there to work with their parliaments on it. I have been to Slovakia three times, twice in the winter. It is not something you would volunteer for. They are starting at ground zero. It is really interesting. There is no institutional history whatsoever.
Now I would like to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Mazzoli, who will talk about a trip that he and our former Member and Secretary of the Interior, Manuel Lujan, took to Mexico, to help us maybe set up an exchange program there.
Mrs. BOGGS. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Madam Speaker, Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, my former colleagues, how great it is to see everyone and be with you today.
The association serves many purposes, and under the excellent leadership of Lou Frey, our friend from Orlando, and the able staff work of Linda Reed, Walt Raymond, and the group, we really maximize the bounce for the buck.
As a result of the work that has been done, the association affords us, as former Members, a chance to come together in this beautiful Chamber, which holds so many memories for all of us, as the scenes of our legislative efforts for our hometowns and States.
It also affords us an opportunity, through the Campus Visit Program, to visit campuses around the country. It was my pleasure to visit the alma mater of Dick Lugar, our colleague from across the Capitol, Denison University in Granville, OH, last springtime. It was a wonderful visit. I spent time with the students and the faculty.
Our association also offers opportunities to travel abroad. As our President said, Congressman Lujan and I did travel to Mexico. We spent a week there in June of last year between Mexico City and Guadalajara. There are many memories. We had meetings, as all of us have, with parliamentarians, with the academic community, with the business community, the government leaders, our counterparts in the assembly. We came away with many feelings. We filed that, Mr. President, in a full report which you have, I think, received permission to file in the Record.
But essentially, we found the attitude much improved, and I think that serves to underscore the outstanding work that our colleague, Jim Jones, has done in Mexico as Ambassador. His counterpart in this country, Jesus Silva Herzog, we will hear from at lunch today, the Ambassador from Mexico, who has visited with us both here on the Hill and in the Embassy to talk about ways that these visits can be institutionalized, because, Mr. President, as you have said many times, former Members have opportunities to speak to issues and to address concerns that we cannot, as sitting Members, do.
So I think we offer not only this repository of information and knowledge and experience and, we hope, some wisdom, but also the opportunity to speak without the necessary problems of constituency concerns and speak to issues that really advance the understanding between nations.
So even as we, I think, have, by reason of President Clinton and President Zedillo Ponce de Leon's relationship, advanced the Nation's agenda, then I think we, as former Members, can do the same thing.
Mr. President, the only thing I would say is, I hope there is some mechanism we can use to institutionalize these trips. Only because of your fertile imagination and your inventive accounting have these trips been made possible. So there has to be some method to institutionalize them. I hope we can. I think they are very valuable, and I am honored to have played a part in this.
My first trip to Mexico was in 1981. My next and only other visit was last June. In the intervening 15 years, Mexico's political, social, economical, and educational climate has changed profoundly. And, in no way is this change more dramatic than in the way Mexico views the migration of its people.
In Mexico 1981, Mexican officials rejected the premise that Mexico and the United States had a mutual interest in controlling illegal entry of Mexican nationals into the United States. These officials declared that Mexican citizens had the right and the authority under Mexican law to leave the Nation without control or question and without exit documents.
Fifteen years later I found a starkly different attitude exhibited by the Mexican academics, Government leaders, and business leaders with whom I spoke during my week in Mexico with former Congressman and former Secretary of the Interior, Manuel Lujan, of New Mexico. Our trip, jointly sponsored by the U.S. Department of State, and the Association of Former Members of Congress, included nearly 4 days in Mexico City and a day and a half in Guadalajara.
This time around, Mexican officials, to a person, agreed that the United States has sovereignty over its border and has the right as well as the responsibility to institute programs to control the border between the United States and Mexico. The 1981 references to the right of Mexicans to travel freely were absent. Instead, we heard frequent and favorable references to the importance of continued contacts between the two nations.
This is not to say that Mexicans were silent on the topic of immigration or muted in their criticism of the way their Mexican brothers and sisters are sometimes treated by United States immigration authorities. But, in sharp contrast to 1981 when the polemics and broadsides flew freely, on this visit our Mexican hosts and hostesses--
I found many more women now than in 1981 in positions of influence--
endorsed collaborative United States-Mexican initiatives on immigration and drug intervention.
One jarring note to Secretary Lujan and me was the belief held by many Mexicans, even some who have spent time in the United States, that there exists in the United States a selective dislike and antipathy toward Mexican people. Several made the point that the two immigration bills then pending before the 104th Congress singled out Mexican nationals for the brunt of the enforcement and control effort.
Secretary Lujan, himself of Hispanic descent, and I did our best to assure everyone that Americans bore no ill nor animus toward Mexicans in a generic or a class sense. I did, however, point out that the frustration of the American people grows because of increased violence at the border committed by aliens seeking to enter the United States illegally and by organized Mexican drug smugglers. Frustrations are also fanned by stories in the media detailing the abuse of America's welfare and health care systems by undocumented Mexican aliens.
To be fair, it must here be noted that not everyone who enters at the southern border is from Mexico--many of them are from elsewhere in the Americas and the world--and not everyone who is in America illegally has crossed the border to get here--many have overstayed their visas.
In our discussions in Mexico, I resorted to a familiar and, I feel, powerful argument: Mexicans in positions of influence over their nations' public policy should support United States efforts to control illegal immigration from Mexico in order to preserve legal immigration programs--which benefit Mexico more than any other nation in the hemisphere--which are not being challenged on Capitol Hill in response to the citizen frustrations I have referred to earlier.
Furthermore, the growing export and import trade between United States and Mexico--under NAFTA--and the expanded financial relationships between the nations--illustrated by the recent support program for the peso engineered by the United States Treasury Department--suggest that Mexico gains much by supporting United States sovereignty over its international borders.
All in all, I came away from this recent trip to Mexico both heartened and disappointed.
I am disappointed that many deeply rooted and highly emotional issues between our nations remain which make it difficult for Mexico and the United States to come together in common cause. thankfully, the efforts of President Bill Clinton and President Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon--
who have developed a cordial and effective working relationship--and members of both nations' Cabinets working through organizations such as the United States-Mexico bi-National Commission, the Summit of the Americas, the organization of American States, and the Border Governors group have led to binational and multinational institutional frameworks for the development of solutions to mutual problems.
On the positive side of the ledger, Secretary Lunjan and I also found an extraordinary interest in what Mexicans team ``federalism'': How governmental systems optimally should function. Mexico has long had an extremely strong executive branch of Government under which the Presidents are guaranteed not only personal wealth when their terms end but a virtual hegemony over the entire nation during their term of office. In that setting, the legislative branch of government in Mexico has been impotent and passive. today members of the Mexican Senate and the House of Delegates are devoted to gaining a rightful role as a coequal branch of government. For us in the United States, this is plain vanilla federalism. In Mexico, it is revolutionary.
Sitting Members of Congress, as well as former Members such as Secretary Lujan and I, along with constitutional experts and political scientists have an unprecedented opportunity to assist our counterparts in Mexico in fashioning a new government for the next century. It is a matchless opportunity to do something good as well as do something smart.
On another subject, Secretary Lujan and I were never far from complaints about the so-called Helms-Burton Act which penalizes domestic and foreign companies which do business in Cuba involving property confiscated from United States firms or citizens at the time of Castro's takeover. Because of the extraterritoriality of Helms-
Burton and because of its retroactivity feature, it has excited great opposition as well as calls for retaliation from Canada and Mexico and from nations of the European Union and of the Organization of American States. As we now know, but did not last June, President Clinton has somewhat quieted the issue by exercising the various options, waivers, and discretionary authorities which he is accorded under the law.
Soon after my return from Mexico, I traveled to El Paso, TX, to take part in a naturalization ceremony at which 4,078 persons from 53 nations became United States citizens on the campus of the University of Texas at El Paso. Taking part in this ceremony was particularly impressive for me both personally--my own father was an immigrant from Italy--and professionally--while in Congress, I was the coauthor of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, under whose provisions many in that audience in El Paso were being naturalized.
It is in these naturalization ceremonies that all the separate threads of the immigration story are woven into a complete garment. Naturalization programs give us a better purchase on the complex and complicated thing called immigration and they demonstrate that while every nation in history has had problems with migration and immigration--the United States is no exception to this historical verity--our Nation has an opportunity and a solemn responsibility to address this vexing and challenging subject with balance, sensitivity, forbearance and charity.
Where do we start?
By continuing to work with Mexico to control illegal immigration. In 1981, Father Theodore M. Hesburgh, former president of the University of Notre Dame, and chair of President Carter's Immigration Reform Commission said: ``If we don't close the back door--control illegal entry into the United States--we won't be able to keep open the front door.'' through which people enter the United States legally. The only way to avoid this undesirable result is to heed Father Ted's prescient advice.
By urging our legislators and the President to adopt a broad perspective on immigration and to oppose nativist, racist or mean-
spirited proposals despite their political and popular allure.
By attending a naturalization ceremony. Normal ceremonies at the Federal courthouses may not be as large as the one in El Paso, but they are no less impressive.
By attending a religious liturgy celebrating immigration such as those sponsored annually by the U.S. Catholic Conference during National Migration Week.
By attending ethnic festivals in which the food and customs and heritage and music of immigrant people are showcased and good times are had by all.
By attending programs such as those sponsored by churches and temples and mosques where newcomers are welcomed, counseled, and given help with language training, job and craft skills, and acculturation.
By attending graduation programs at local high schools, colleges and universities, and noting the ethnic diversity of the academically distinguished graduates. Many of them are immigrants or the sons and daughters of recent immigrants.
Immigration is fascinating and frustrating precisely because it is the story of the sweep of human history. It is the story of the nobility and of the fallibility of humankind. Rarely has a people had a greater opportunity to impress its hallmark on history and humankind than we in the United States possess here and now. By welcoming the strangers in our midst, we will enrich and revitalize our Nation and the world in the process.
Mr. FREY. Thank you, I think.
The crown jewel of what we do really is working with young people. I think that probably gives each of us the most satisfaction of anything we do, the chance to go to college communities to talk with young people, to spend 2, 2\1/2\ days with it. We have started now a Congressional Campus Fellowship Program. It actually began in 1976 and sort of teetered along for a while. We went to a number of places. But we have really institutionalized it.
Part of the reason is, we have been able to work with the Stennis Center for Public Service in Mississippi State University. They have acted as secretariat of it for us and sent groups out. This year I think we went to 10 schools, and our goal next year is 20 or 25 schools around the country.
I would like to yield to the gentleman from New York, who went on one of those trips and was highly successful, to tell us a little bit about his time on campus. Mr. Wortley.
Mrs. BOGGS. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Wortley, is recognized.
Mr. WORTLEY. Madam Speaker, Mr. President, I do feel more comfortable at this lectern than perhaps the other one.
Mr. FREY. I am a little nervous over here.
Mr. WORTLEY. I might digress for a moment to say that the United States representation at the Holy See will never have been in better hands than with the Ambassador-elect.
I am pleased to report this morning that the United States Association of Former Members of Congress Campus Fellowship Program is active, healthy, and delivering a bipartisan message to the campuses of America's universities. During this past academic year, the association cosponsored the program with the Stennis Center for Public Service in Mississippi. Bipartisan teams of former Members of Congress, one Democrat, one Republican, have made 2- to 3-day visits to nine university communities from California to Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and New Mexico.
The former Members donated their time. The Stennis Center paid the transportation expenses, and the hosting institutions provided our room and board.
I was joined at Cameron University in Lawton, OK, by Dennis Hertel, who seems to be the most popular man on the floor this morning, Dennis. You are all over the world. We lectured six, political science classes, participated in one 30-minute television panel, gave a \1/4\ hour newspaper interview over lunch, as well as a second luncheon where the U.S.-U.N. relationship was the topic of discussion. We were also the subject of a couple minutes of TV coverage on local news shows and were guests at a department reception.
In our off hours, we enjoyed a dinner hosted by the college president and another at the home of our host.
Dennis and I found an interesting blend of students that included several retired and retiring military personnel from nearby Fort Sill, as well as the usual undergraduate age group. The students were alert, inquisitive, and kept both even Dennis and I on our toes at all times.
Did we make a difference? Yes, we did make a difference. I believe we gave the students new insight into the process and hopefully dispelled some of the misconceptions that exist today about this great institution. We were living examples that reasonable men can disagree but never need to be disagreeable.
I would note that at Cameron University we were the guests of the Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice. I am not sure if there was any significance in the pairings of those two subjects.
Oh, yes, we did come away with at least two students who expressed interest in running for Congress, one of whom had lost a recent race for the mayor of Lawton, OK. Perhaps if Dennis and I had gotten there a little earlier, we might have made a bigger difference.
But I am hopeful that our campus fellowship presentations have made a difference and the day will come, Madam Speaker, when you will see the results of our efforts in this Chamber.
Thank you.
Mr. FREY. I might add as the result of this and going to the campuses, we have been asked to write a book about the Congress from a personal standpoint, and I sent out a message, some of you have sent it in. Some, like the gentleman from California, Pete McCloskey and Larry Coughlin and a few others who I have not named, haven't gotten their chapters in, so this is a gentle reminder for it.
But we are working with the head of the Political Science Department at Colgate University to publish the book, and we think it will be unique. There have been books on Congress, but there has never been a book on various aspects of Congress written by the people who really were here and lived it. So if everybody gets their chapter in, we may have that done by the first part of the year.
Just very quickly, getting to the end of this, as you can see, we are really doing a lot. We are really out there, involved in different things. There are opportunities, hopefully, for you and for some who are not here to get involved. There are also opportunities for corporations and foundations who are listening, who want to help the kids in this country, to contribute and work with us to do this. It would be great if we could get the 50 universities. It would be wonderful. We have had 106 Members volunteer and probably another 30 just over this time. So we have the people. It is just the funding mechanism to do it. So anybody listening, if you are interested, you know where to get us. We should have a 1-800 number up there. It is a worthwhile thing to do.
We maintain close relations with the associations of former Members of Parliament around the world, and in that I would like to recognize one of our guests who has been with us before. Barry Turner, president of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians, is with us today.
Barry, would you please stand up and be recognized.
Barry has written a chapter for the book on comparing our system with the Canadian system.
We really appreciate your help on that.
Obviously, the officers of the association, Matt McHugh, John Erlenborn, John Lancaster, the board of directors, really have done an incredible job. This is a working group, not people who have let their names be used on the organization. We have an auxiliary headed by Annie Rhodes, who has run the Life After Congress seminar, which is a wonderful thing. This is the second time we have done it for people who are retiring. It sort of walks them through what they have and the problems and, frankly, discusses what they are facing when you get out, going from where everybody listens to you and calls to when all of a sudden the phone stops ringing and how do you handle that. The auxiliary is to be really congratulated.
Linda Reed, our executive director, wears many, many hats and does an incredible job. We are lucky to have her and really just so proud of the job you do, Linda.
Walt Raymond, who came on board with us to work part time and now works full time back there and who is really responsible for the tremendous growth of our overseas programs.
Now it is my sad duty to inform the House of those persons who served in the Congress who have passed away since our report last year. The deceased Members of Congress are as follows:
James F. Battin (Montana); Ray Blanton (Tennessee); Paul W. Cronin
(Massachusetts); Hamilton Fish (New York); Edward J. Gurney (Florida); Seymour Halpern (New York); Oren Harris (Arkansas); Charles Hayes
(Illinois); Chet E. Holifield (California); Harold E. Hughes (Iowa); Leo Isacson (New York); Harry Jeffrey (Ohio); Edward H. Jenison
(Illinois); Coya Knutson (Minnesota); Paul J. Krebs (New Jersey); Robert M. Love (Ohio); Hugh Buenton Mitchell (Washington); William L. Scott (Virginia); Jessie Sumner (Illinois); and Paul Tsongas
(Massachusetts).
Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask all of you to rise for a moment of silence in their memory. May they rest in peace. Amen.
Mrs. BOGGS. It is so ordered.
Mr. FREY. May they rest in peace. Amen.
Thank you.
Madam Speaker, I would like obviously to offer on behalf of myself and everybody here, our congratulations. They just don't do it better, and we are obviously not only proud of the job you have done in Congress but for us, and now a new responsibility, and we are really lucky.
Mrs. BOGGS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. FREY. Madam Speaker, this concludes our 27th annual report to the Congress by the United States Association of Former Members of Congress.
I think I said earlier, and I truly believe it, that being a Member of this body was a privilege. It was the best thing that ever happened to me. There were times that I would look out the window and say, you know, am I really here? I never lost awe of this institution. I never lost feeling that being here was just an incredible opportunity and a privilege, and think to the same extent I feel that being a former Member is also a privilege, because we have got a chance to help the people in this country understand what we have been given, the incredible job that the people who wrote this Constitution did. A little over 7,000 words, and it still works somehow today.
It is so easy to kick things around and be cynical; it is so easy to knock; but this body is what keeps it together. This is the keel on the sailboat that keeps us from tilting too far to the right or too far to the left, and we usually float back and forth through the center. There really is no other group in this country that has the ability to speak, that has the credibility to speak, and that are united, not with a
``D'' or ``R'' after our names or whatever, that is really insignificant, but are united for our love for this institution. We are part of and have been part of the greatest legislative body in the history of the world. I say that without any false sense of pride, but I say it because I think this institution has earned the respect of those people in this country and those people around the world, and it is going to keep the respect. I look forward to working with each and every one of you for those things that we believe in.
Thank you so much, Madam Speaker.
Mrs. BOGGS. The Chair again wishes to thank the following Members of Congress for your presence here today and to announce that those of you who may have come in after the roll was called, that you may come and make your presence known to the Clerk here at the Speaker's desk.
I would be very happy to have all of you registered and to thank all of you for your participation, not only in this session, but for your participation day after day, year after year, in carrying forward, as our President has just said, this great and wonderful Government under the enduring Constitution of the United States.
I wish to thank all of you for coming, and I now declare that the session is over and that the House will reconvene at 10:30 this morning.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 15 minutes p.m.), the House continued in recess.
____________________
