quick fix like pop psychology. Beginningnwith the oedipal, I peel my patientsnapart, layer by layer, like annonion.n”It would be horrible for these peoplento have to depend on a supremenbeing.”nShe ended her testimony with anwildly applauded miracle, “By thenway, I had my baby.”n”Can you beat that?” began thensecond witness, a soprano lawyer withnsmall flip-out ears and a goatee. Hencould not; humanism had only madenhim an altruistic lawyer and raisednhim above his peers: “Other lawyersnare not good guys,” he put it.nThe final witness was a fi’izzy-hairednclinical social worker with saggingncheeks and thick lips and a fetus-likenbody, who told another tale of humannmight in the teeth of scientific fact.nHer heroine was one of her patients,nan 85-year-old woman who would notnallow a doctor near her. “When Inasked, ‘Would you like an appointment,’nshe replied, ‘No. Twenty yearsnago the doctors told me that I wouldnsoon be dead.’n”She never saw a physician again,nand lived a beautiful life. Listening tonher case history, my tears flowed. Inlearned that seniors have feelings too.n”Now I work as a pregnancy counselornat a clinic, where women mustnmake decisions. My humanistic trainingnhelps me reach out to my patientsnand tell them that the light is within,nthat the answers are in themselves.”nThe happy rabbi called on all membersnof the flock who earned diplomasnin 1986 to march up onto the pulpitnand light the Menorah. After replacingnthe torch, each lightbearer rushed tonWine for a Sammy Davis Jr. hug andnkiss — he might have been RobertnSchuller.nIvan Helfman is a journalist in thenDetroit area.nLetter From FortnWorthnby Hamilton H. HowzenPork Politicsn”There is no distinctly native Americanncriminal class, except Congress.”n—Pudd’nhead Wilson’s CalendarnMark Twain, responsible for the foregoing,nwas being funny. His remark,nhowever, is steadily becoming a littlenmore true and a little less funny.nThe U.S. Congress, through indirectionnand guile rather than by overtnvote, has managed to give itself a paynraise. The national press, for oncenanxious to establish itself as really patriotic,nreasonable, and fair, has innmost part agreed that the heavy responsibilitiesnof congressmen merit thenadditional compensation.nWhat nobody seems to acknowledge,nhowever, is that neither businessmennnor professionals commandntheir salaries according to their responsibilitiesnbut according to how wellnthey meet them. If a company executivenofficer doesn’t do his job right hengets sacked or demoted. Not so ancongressman — providing he playsnthe political game right, he’s there,nforever,nThough most Texans have heldnSenator Lloyd Bentsen in high regard,nhe has been discovered to preside overna breakfast club whose individualnmembership tab of $10,000 went intonhis reelection fund. The senator hasnadmitted a mistake—but of what? Ofncommitting a gross impropriety or ofnfailing to conceal the club’s existence?nAs it is, the club has been disbanded.nSenator Robert Bird, the MajoritynLeader, on the other hand, is lessnsensitive, keeping his breakfast clubnintact, its membership fee a paltryn$5,000.nHow many other congressmennmaintain breakfast clubs, and at whatncost to the members, we are not told.nBut apparentiy the device is not annuncommon one in our Congress.nAnd who are those who belonged,nor belong, to these breakfast clubs? It isnsafe to assume that they are personsnwho want, for reasons worth morenthan $5,000-110,000, to talk at leisurento an official of great influence in thennngovernment. Their belief in the possibilitynof getting, for their money, governmentnaction favorable to them orntheir companies must be exceptional. Indon’t know what the legal distinctionnmight be, but to a layman that soundsnlike the prostitution of influence andnpower.nWhat is the chance of an ordinaryncitizen getting the careful individualnattention of such a senator or representative?nUnless he is a friend or a personnof unusual wealth, importance, or influence,nthe prospect is a mighty slimnone. Even a written request would innall probability be answered by a staffernor by a form letter. After all, a congressmannis deluged by scores, maybenhundreds, of calls and letters every daynand cannot even think of giving eachnone his personal attention. But not sonfor the breakfast club member.nBut we were really talking aboutnpay. A conscientious, smart, and courageousncongressman, capable of distinguishingnright from wrong and understandingngeopolitical realities asnwell as the needs of American society,nis worth more than any of them get.nThere are, fortunately, a considerablennumber of such congressmen, an examplenbeing the recently deceasednWashington Democrat Henry Jackson.nJackson was properly conscious of thenrequirements of his constituents, butnhis knowledge of world affairs enablednhim to balance one consideration withnthe other.nWe should ask ourselves, what isnCongress for? It may sound a bit simplistic,nbut 1 should say its principalnpurpose is to represent the people innthe enactment or modification of legislationnnecessary for the administrationn(a) to protect the country; (b) to governnthe country properly; and (c) to managenthe country’s foreign affairs. Butnwhatever one’s personal definition ofnthe function of Congress, it seemsnlogical that performance, not simplenresponsibility, should determine congressionalnpay raises.nIf Congress were meeting its responsibilities,nthis country would not bensuffering from many of its longstanding,nlong-unresolved problems.nAs we all know, it took the Congressnnine years to come up with ineffectualnlegislation to curb the flood of illegalnimmigration across our southern border.nThe House of Representatives isnJULY 1987/41n