[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 15 (Monday, February 5, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E150-E151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        REMARKS BY SENATOR SIMPSON AT NATIONAL PRAYER BREAKFAST

                                 ______


                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, February 1, 1996

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce into 
the Congressional Record the following speech, by my friend and 
colleague Senator Alan Simpson, given at the National Prayer Breakfast 
this morning. Senator Simpson delivered this eloquent address with his 
legendary wit and humor. I encourage all of my colleagues to read this 
most significant speech by Senator Alan Simpson.

                       National Prayer Breakfast


                            february 1, 1996

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

     ``We'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day,
     We'd rather you would walk with us than merely show the way.
     The eye is a better pupil and more willing than the ear.
     Fine counsel is confusing, but example's always clear.
     We can soon learn how to do it if you'll let us see it done,
     We can watch you well in action, but your tongue too fast may 
           run
     And the lecture you deliver may be very wise and true,
     But we'd rather get our lessons by observing what you do.''
       Now there's ``The Word'' for the day! God bless you all.
       
[[Page E151]]


           YELTSIN ADVISOR PROCLAIMS YELTSIN REFORM ERA OVER

                                 ______


                        HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, February 1, 1996

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the record the 
text of Boris Yeltsin's human rights advisor Sergei Kovalev's letter of 
resignation.
  Mr. Speaker, this devastating critique of the Yeltsin regime is most 
timely, considering the IMF's current considerations of a $9 billion 
infusion into the Russian treasury. It also comes at a time when Prime 
Minister Chernomyrdin is here in the United States assuring the 
administration and other officials that all is well in Russia. All is 
not well Mr. Speaker, and those, like the administration, who still 
don't get it are plainly referred to by Mr. Kovalev as naive. I urge 
all Members to read this critical letter.

                        The Case Against Yeltsin

                          (By Sergei Kovalev)

       For the past six years I have considered it my duty to 
     promote in every way possible the policy that can fairly be 
     called the ``democratic transformation of Russia'' not-
     withstanding many reservations. For a long time that policy 
     was closely linked with your name. You were the head of a 
     country on the road to democracy, and at first, you were even 
     considered the leader of the democrats. As long as you 
     remained headed in that direction. I considered myself your 
     ally, or, in those instances when you departed from the 
     overall course or drastically slowed the tempo of advance, a 
     member of the loyal opposition.
       Russia's road to freedom never promised to be easy. Many 
     difficulties were obvious from the very beginning. Many 
     others cropped up unexpectedly. To overcome them, all of us--
     the government, society, each individual--had to make 
     complicated and sometimes tragic decisions. The main things 
     the country expected from you were the will to make changes 
     and honesty. Especially honesty. In electing you, Russia saw 
     not only a politician ready to demolish the former state 
     structure, but a person who was sincerely trying to change 
     himself, his views, his prejudices and his habits of rule. 
     You convinced many--myself included--that humane and 
     democratic values could become the foundation of your life, 
     your work and your policies. We weren't blind. We saw the 
     typical traits of a Communist Party secretary preserved in 
     your behavior. But all Russia, like a man striving to 
     overcome a serious defect, was struggling with itself. We 
     understood you even when we did not love you.
       In recent years, however, even though you continue to 
     proclaim your undying devotion to democratic ideals, you have 
     at first slowly, and then more and more abruptly, changed the 
     course of government policy. Now your government is trying to 
     turn the country in a direction completely contrary to the 
     one proclaimed in August 1991. . . .
       Beginning in late 1993 if not even earlier, you have 
     consistently taken decisions which--instead of strengthening 
     the rule of law in a democratic society--have revived the 
     blunt and inhuman might of a state machine that stands 
     above justice, law and the individual. . . .
       During the tragic days of the fall of 1993 [when Yeltsin 
     dissolved the Supreme Soviet], I decided to stand by you 
     despite my serious inner doubts. I don't deny my 
     responsibility for that support. I believed that the use of 
     force was a tragic necessity given the imminent threat of 
     civil war. Even then I understood that the events of October 
     might encourage the top leaders to perceive force as a 
     convenient and familiar instrument for resolving political 
     problems. But I hoped for a different outcome, that by 
     overcoming the crisis of legitimacy and creating a basis for 
     the rule of law in Russia, the president and the government 
     would do everything possible for our country's peaceful and 
     free development. To a very great extent, the outcome 
     depended on you, Boris Nikolaevich. I believed that you would 
     choose the second path. I was wrong.
       The 1993 Constitution confers enormous powers on the 
     president, but it also places enormous responsibilities on 
     him: to be the guarantor of the rights and liberties of 
     citizens, to safeguard their security and to protect law and 
     order in the country. How have you discharged these duties? 
     How have you fulfilled your responsibilities?
       You have virtually halted judicial reform, which was 
     designed to make the administration of justice truly 
     independent from the other branches of government. You openly 
     professed the principle: ``Let the innocent suffer as long as 
     the guilty are punished.''
       You loudly proclaimed the launching of a war on organized 
     crime. In order to implement this, you granted exceptional, 
     extralegal authority to the security ministries. The result? 
     The criminals continue to roam freely, while law-abiding 
     citizens have to tolerate the abuse of the uniformed forces 
     without gaining the security they were promised.
       You stated that your goal was the preservation and 
     strengthening of the Russian Federation's territorial 
     integrity. The result? A shameful and bungled civil war which 
     has been raging in the North Caucasus for more than a year. 
     Under the guise of strengthening Russia's defense capability, 
     you've blocked all military reforms which would give Russia 
     an effective modern army. The result? Spending on the army 
     is growing, and the number of generals has increased to an 
     indecent figure. In order to justify their existence, the 
     term of service has been increased and draft deferments 
     have been ended. Meanwhile, soldiers and officers are 
     impoverished, ragged and hungry. And the degradation, ill-
     treatment and corruption, traditional in our army, are as 
     prevalent as ever. Not surprisingly, tens of thousands of 
     young men are evading this medieval recruitment like the 
     plague.
       You speak of a policy of openness, of transparency and of 
     public accountability, yet at the same time you sign secret 
     decrees concerning the most important matters of state. You 
     create closed institutions, and you classify as secret ever 
     more information about government operations and the state of 
     the country. Presidential decisions are made almost in the 
     same backroom fashion as in the era of the Politburo. It's no 
     secret that you increasingly depend on the security services 
     and on their system of clandestine information. Isn't it 
     obvious to you how unreliable and tendentious this 
     information is?
       The thrust of your personnel policy is becoming clearer 
     with each passing day. At first there were quite a few 
     competent, honorable people around you. But you also 
     enthusiastically welcomed individuals whose only virtue 
     consisted in their personal loyalty to you. Gradually such 
     loyalty has become your primary demand when recruiting staff, 
     just as it was in the heyday of the Community Party. . . .
       You began your democratic career as a forceful and 
     energetic crusader against official deceit and party 
     disposition, but you are ending it as the obedient executor 
     of the will of the power-seekers in your entourage. You took 
     an oath to build a government of the people and for the 
     people, but instead you have built a bureaucratic pyramid 
     over the people and against the people. Moreover, having 
     rejected democratic values and principles, you haven't 
     stopped using the word ``democracy'' so that naive people may 
     well believe that ``democrats'' remain in power in the 
     Kremlin. Your policies have compromised the very word, and if 
     democracy is fated to someday exist in Russia (and I believe 
     it will), it will exist not because of you, but in spite of 
     you.

                          ____________________