Rights in accordance with the laws enacted by the Congress and the policy directives issued by his superiors in the administration. The narrow issue that is posed, therefore, by Dr. Lefever's personal views on our international human rights policies, as he has expressed them in recent years, is how he will exercise such discretion as will be left to him, and how he will advise his superiors in policy formulation. I am sure that in this narrow context the committee will agree that the examination of the policy attitude of an executive branch employee is primarily the responsibility of the executive. Nevertheless, permit me to say a few words on that subject as well. Having recently served as U.S. Delegate at a session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission and as U.S. Representative on a UNESCO Committee dealing with human rights, I have had the opportunity to study and analyze the problem of human rights on the international scene. Let me also say that, as one who close to 40 years ago lost his father and mother and most other relatives in the Nazi death camps in Poland. I am deeply aware of the problems posed by man's inhumanity to man. The issue, Mr. Chairman, is not whether the United States should help alleviate human suffering throughout the world, but how it can do so effectively. From my discussions with Dr. Lefever, I am certain that he is committed to the principle that our country must try its very best to help, but that he considers it important that we do so in the context of our foreign policy objectives and in a manner which is likely to produce effective results. In this context, I do want to tell you that what I have discovered in recent months is that a great many strong advocates of the human rights cause focus on slogans, on public pronouncements and highsounding covenants on the subject, but unfortunately tend to lose sight of the human beings whose lives should be affected by these statements and declarations. Dr. Lefever, whose life experience has been with people and who has been dedicated to the realization of a better life for people, will indeed be able to devise ways in which our country can help save lives and protect the human dignity of individuals, rather than have us limit ourselves to high-sounding pronouncements which are far removed from the reality with which suffering people throughout the world must deal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The following information was referred to on page 258.] VALUES EDUCATION COMMISSION-STATE OF MARYLAND Origin and mandate STATEMENT OF PURPOSE On May 16, 1978, the Governor of Maryland approved Senate Joint Resolution 64 of the General Assembly creating a Values Education Commission "to identify and assess ongoing programs in morals and values education in the schools of Maryland" and to formulate recommendations that will reinforce "our traditional adherence and devotion to high standards of moral and ethical conduct" in personal and public life. The members of the Commission, 23 citizens of Maryland from various backgrounds, were appointed in January, 1979. The Commission's initial meeting took place on February 26, 1979, and the Commission has met at monthly intervals since that time. An erosion of values and conduct In its creation of the Commission, the General Assembly noted the widespread recognition of the breakdown "in the normal standards of individual behavior and violations of public trust" and a sense of helplessness about how to improve the situation. It said "the elementary school is the appropriate place" to encourage "ideals and desirable personal and public conduct." In these early years students form their values, attitudes, and conduct that will be the basis of their personal character and behavior as citizens. Values education, the General Assembly noted, should be continued in junior and senior high school. Character and citizenship education In harmony with the joint resolution, the Commission takes the view that the public schools are appropriate, indeed necessary, institutions in a democratic society for defining and encouraging character and citizenship values. The schools cannot supplant the role played by the family and religion in values education, but they can reinforce positive attitudes and behavior and counteract negative influences on the students. The Commission recognizes that responsible personal and citizenship behavior can be encouraged by the entire public school experience as well as by special efforts within the curriculum to deal with the rights and duties of citizens in a democracy. The Commission also recognizes that there is no neat dividing line between those character attributes that relate to the student's life in the family and school and those that relate to the student's behavior as a citizen. For convenience, however, we have defined two overlapping categories character values and citizenship values. Some of the major objectives of each are noted below: Character objectives 1. Personal integrity and honesty rooted in respect for the truth, intellectual curiosity, and love of learning. 2. A sense of duty to self, family, school, and community. 3. Self-esteem rooted in the recognition of one's potential. 4. Respect for the rights of all persons regardless of their race, religion, sex, age, physical condition, or mental state. 5. A recognition of the right of others to hold and express differing views, combined with the capacity to make discriminating judgments among competing opinions. 6. A sense of justice, rectitude, fair play and a commitment to them. 7. A disposition of understanding, sympathy, concern, and compassion for others. 8. A sense of discipline and pride in one's work; respect for the achievements of others. 9. Respect for one's property and the property of others, including public property. 10. Courage to express one's convictions. Citizenship objectives 1. Patriotism: love, respect, and loyalty to the United States of America, and the willingness to correct its imperfections by legal means. 2. An understanding of the rights and obligations of a citizen in a democratic society. 3. An understanding of other societies in the world which do not enjoy the rights and privileges of a democratic government. 4. Respect for the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, and the right of every citizen to enjoy equality under the law. An understanding of the Bill of Rights and a recognition that all rights are limited by other rights and by obligations. 5. Respect for legitimate authority at the local, state, and federal level. 6. Alliegiance to the concept of democratic government as opposed to totalitarian rule. A recognition that such government is limited by the separation of powers and by the countervailing role of other institutions in a pluralistic society-principally the family, religion, the school, and the private sector of the economy. 7. Recognition of the need for an independent court system to protect the rights of all citizens. 8. An acceptance of all citizenship responsibilities at the local, state, and national levels and a commitment to preserve and defend the United States and its democratic institutions. The commission's program Having defined the foregoing objectives of values education, the Commission plans to examine the conditions in our public schools to determine to what extent these objectives are indeed met and to what extent conditions in the schools fall short of meeting them. Where the Commission hears of or finds that an exemplary program is in effect, it will call attention to them and will note them in its recommendations. If it is established that conditions in the public schools do fall short of meeting of meeting the Commission's defined objectives, the Commission will seek to formulate recommendations for submission to the Governor, the General Assembly, and the State Board of Education as to the steps to be taken to effect improvements. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Schifter. STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. BERNSTEIN, CHAIRMAN, U.S. HELSINKI WATCH COMMITTEE, NEW YORK, N.Y. Mr. BERNSTEIN. My name is Robert Bernstein. I am president of Random House. I am chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Watch Committee and I represent them here today. Appended to my statement is one by Ludmilla Alexeyeva, Soviet exile and representative abroad of the Moscow Helsinki Watch. As you know, most members of the Moscow committee, as well as members of the other Soviet committees which later came into being, are now in labor camps, in prisons. Our committee was organized in 1979 as an American counterpart to those groups and to other citizens groups which have appeared in Western Europe. We monitor U.S. compliance with the Helsinki Accords, as well as focusing on the worst violators, the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. The U.S. Helsinki Watch Committee opposes confirmation of Ernest Lefever because he himself opposes the purposes for which Congress created the post he seeks. He opposes our interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, especially in human rights. We believe that there are many aspects and relationships between nations and each is affected by the other. When we assist other countries, we shore up their governments. And if they torture and murder their citizens, we cannot escape responsibility. Human rights today is an integral part of international relations and it cannot be neatly packaged and cited separately only when convenient. Governments change and are overthrown, and if we support torturers today we will pave the day for the country's enemies tomorrow. Publishing has taught me that belief in human rights is not some idealistic dream, but is as essential as civil liberties are to Americans. We cannot carry on civilized life without them. Two examples are occurring this very week. I came to Washington with an author I publish, Jacobo Timerman, a prominent newspaper editor who has been mentioned here many times in the last few days. As an American, I believe that my government must take into account the torture of Jacobo Timerman and the thousands of disappearances in our relationship to Argentina. Ernest Lefever has written, however, that we should decide whether to assist other countries regardless of their practices, and I quote, "however obnoxious." I also publish Andrei Sakharov, who in 2 days will mark his 60th birthday in Gorky. It is interfering in the internal affairs of other countries when President Reagan sent a message 2 weeks ago to the International Conference in Honor of Sakharov, sponsored by the New York Academy of Sciences, which I read in part. Mr. Sakharov is a Russian patriot in the best sense of the word because he perceives his people's greatness to lie not in militarism and conquests abroad, but in building a free and lawful society at home. His principled declarations on behalf of freedom and peace reinforce our belief in these ideals. He persisted in this mission even after being subjected to increasingly harsh penalties. We hope and pray that his exile will be ended. Does this Presidential statement reflect the quarantine on human rights that Mr. Lefever seems to want? We live in a world of symbols. Ernest Lefever's confirmation as the administrator of our country's human rights policy will send forth a signal that the United States is abandoning the evenhanded position that has been built up in a bipartisan spirit during several administrations. The U.S. Congress is also a symbol. It is the most powerful legis lative body in the world. It cares about the rights of the individual. understanding that when these rights are in jeopardy so are the rights of nations. It is this wisdom that has transformed the battle between capitalism and communism to one between democracy and totalitarianism. We of the U.S. Helsinki Watch believe that you would be doing yourselves, the President, and our country a great disservice by confirming the nomination of Ernest Lefever. His beliefs disqualify him to be what in many ways is the conscience of our Government. Thank you. [Mr. Bernstein's prepared statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. BERNSTEIN My name is Robert Bernstein. I am a businessman engaged in publishing and serve as President and Chairman of Random House. I am also the Chairman of the United States Helsinki Watch Committee and I appear here today on behalf of the Committee to oppose confirmation of Ernest W. Lefever for the post as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs We believe that he is unsuited to hold this post because he has been a consistent and outspoken opponent of making the internal human rights practices of other countries a factor in determining or influencing American policy toward those countries. The United States Helsinki Watch Committee was organized two and a half years ago to monitor compliance with, and to seek implementation of the hu man rights provisions of the 1975 Helsinki Accords by the thirty-five states of Europe and North America that signed them. The Helsinki Accords are impor tant, we believe, because they represent the joint declaration by the signatory states that a nation's internal human rights practices are properly a matter of international concern and, particularly, a matter of East-West concern. The sig nificance of the Helsinki Accords was greatly enhanced by the establishment in Moscow five years ago of a citizens organization to monitor compliance with the human rights provisions by the government of the Soviet Union, one of the signatory states. As I am sure that members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are aware, most of the courageous Soviet citizens who organized the Moscow Helsinki Watch group are now in prison. To continue their work, they called on citizens elsewhere in the world to form analogous groups to monitor compliance with the Helsinki Accords. Our Committee was organized in response to that call. We have devoted most of our efforts to criticism of the governments of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and other East European nations have systematically disregarded the obligations they undertook in signing the Helsinki Accords. I relate this information about the genesis of our Committee because I believe it makes clear why we oppose confirmation of Mr. Lefever. We are committed to the view that the internal human rights practices of any country are properly the concern of every other country. He is committed, or has been committed, to the opposite view. We are committed to the view that citizens should speak out about human rights abuses everywhere in the world and that our government should speak out about human rights abuses everywhere in the world. He is committed, or has been committed to the opposite view insofar as the government is concerned. It is not only because Mr. Lefever stands for the opposite of what we stand for that we oppose his confirmation, however. We oppose his confirmation because Mr. Lefever stands for the opposite of the policies of the United States as expressed in its international agreements, such as the Helsinki Accords, and because he stands for the opposite of the policies of the United States as expressed in its domestic laws. The Helsinki Accords express the commitment of the United States to make the internal human rights practices of other countries a matter of concern to our government. That is the way the Accords are understood by our government. It is the way the Accords were understood by President Ford, who signed them in 1975. It is the way the Accords were understood by President Carter, whose administration sent Arthur Goldberg to the 1977 Belgrade Review Conference and Griffin Bell and Max Kampelman to the 1980-81 Madrid Review Conference to denounce internal human rights practices by other countries in violation of the Helsinki Accords. It is the way the Accords are understood by President Reagan who has continued the appointment of Max Kampelman as Ambassador to the Madrid Review Conference. President Reagan's instructions to Mr. Kampelman are reflected in the leadership the United States continues to exercise in Madrid in condemning human rights abuses in other countries in violation of the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Accords. Ernest Lefever, in opposing concern for internal human rights practices in other countries as a factor that should influence American foreign policy, opposes the Helsinki Accords as interpreted by Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan. Ironically, he stands with the Soviet Union which, despite its signature on the Helsinki Accords, now says that its human rights practices are not the business of other countries. Domestic law expresses a similar commitment to making the internal human rights practices of other countries a factor influencing American policy toward those countries. Section 502B (a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, provides that: "The United States shall, in accordance with its international obligations as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and in keeping with the Constitutional heritage and traditions of the United States, promote and encourage increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Accordingly, a principal goal of the foreign policy of the United States shall be to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries." Section 502B (a) (2) goes on to provide that: "[N]o security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." The post for which Mr. Lefever has been nominated was created by Congress in 1978. Section 624 (f) (i) sets forth the duties of the person who occupies this post: "There shall be in the Department of State an Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs who shall be responsible to the Secretary of State for matters pertaining to human rights and humanitarian affairs (including matters relating to refugees, prisoners of war, and members |