Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), my good friend.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. It was with sincere sadness that I introduced this resolution a month ago, and that I now ask my colleagues to strongly support this resolution. When I introduced this resolution, Madam Speaker, 24 American airmen were not held captive on a Chinese island, contrary to all provisions of international law, and it is a sheer coincidence that we are considering this resolution at the very time when the attention of the United States and, indeed, much of the world is directed at Beijing to see how they will function in this self-induced and self-created crisis. When I introduced my resolution a month ago, as all Americans, I also was hoping optimistically that the Chinese government would take at least a few minimal steps to improve the abominable human rights record of the People's Republic of China. Unfortunately, the State Department's Human Rights Report indicates that the human rights situation in China this past year has become worse. As the report demonstrates, the government of China continues to use torture, forced confessions, arbitrary arrest and detention, and the general denial of due process. The government of China restricts freedom of speech. It restricts the freedom of the press. It denies freedom of religion, including the most brutal crackdown on the Falun Gong spiritual movement, Tibetan Buddhists, Muslims, and, of course, Christians. The Chinese government continues to subject vast numbers of political prisoners to forced labor, and it prevents the formation of independent trade unions or independent nongovernmental organizations. The resolution before the House today indicates strong support for the decision of our administration to offer a resolution at the Human Rights Commission in Geneva calling on the Chinese government to end its human rights abuses, both in China and in Tibet. In the past, Congress has passed similar resolutions, but unfortunately, the Chinese government usually prevails in Geneva on a so-called no-action motion. Under this devious parliamentary tactic, the Chinese government successfully prevents even the consideration of our resolution. The Chinese prevail in this vote not because the international community recognizes its performance in the human rights field, but because the Chinese government systematically threatens commercial contracts with the developed world and threatens to deny foreign aid to poor nations. I am under no illusion, Madam Speaker, that it will be anything but an uphill battle to prevail in Geneva this year and to win passage of the China human rights resolution. I commend the President and the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, for moving forward with this effort. I will do whatever I can to urge other governments to support our effort. In all candor, let me state, Madam Speaker, that I am particularly disappointed in the countries of the European Union as they continue to shirk their responsibilities to promote internationally recognized human rights. The European Union ministers have already announced that they will not cosponsor the American resolution. Ultimately, some of them will vote with us, but it is a shame that the Europeans continue to bury their heads in the sand, desperately hoping that trade with China will magically bring about the creation of a Chinese civil society based on internationally recognized human rights. I would like to take just one specific example of the intensity and flavor of human rights violations in China. Recently, Madam Speaker, as we know, the Chinese government imprisoned an American University researcher, Gao Zhan, and her family on the phony charge of espionage. Now, Gao Zhan is an academic who has conducted research related to the status of women. She and her husband are permanent residents of the United States, and their son, Andrew, 5 years old, is an American citizen. Gao and her family had gone to China to visit her family. They were standing in line at the Beijing airport preparing to get on the plane to come back to their home in the United States. Out of nowhere, Chinese officials emerged and pulled all three family members out of line and hustled them into separate cars. Gao was put in prison, we do not know where. As of today, her whereabouts are unknown. Her husband was blindfolded and driven 2 hours to an unknown location, and their 5-year-old son was taken to a government facility, even though his grandparents live in the city, where they happened to be. One of my grandchildren is 5 years old. I can imagine the fear and the horror and the pain and the nightmare a 5-year-old must go through as out of the blue his mother and father are arrested, taken to separate government police cars, and taken away. This little boy for 26 days, 26 consecutive days, did not see his mother, his father, or his grandparents. This degree of insensitivity to fundamental human rights of a little 5-year-old child is an index of the degree to which the Chinese government respects human rights today. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution. There is nothing I would like to see more than good relations with China. I have the highest regard for the Chinese people. They represent one of the great civilizations on the face of this planet. They have all the opportunity of building an advanced, civilized society, but they must not do it by trampling on the human rights of their citizens, or on the fundamental human rights of a little 5-year-old American citizen who was deprived for 26 days from contact with his family. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today with my distinguished colleagues, James McGovern of Massachusetts and Hilda Solis of California, I introduced H.R. 1289--legislation that would restrict the ability of hospitals, including hospitals operated by the Veterans' Administration, to require registered nurses to work mandatory overtime hours as a normal course of business. Increasingly, hospitals and other employers in the health care field are requiring their employees to work overtime. Our legislation--the Registered Nurses and Patients Protection Act--would stop that unsafe and exploitative practice. The Fair Labor Standards Act grants nurses the right to receive overtime compensation even though they are licensed professionals, but it does not limit the amount of overtime that nurses can work, nor does it permit them to refuse mandatory overtime. Our legislation would change that inequity. Under our bill, mandatory overtime for licensed health care employees (excluding physicians) would be prohibited. The bill amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to prohibit mandatory overtime beyond 8 hours in a single work day or 80 hours in any 14 day work period. The legislation provides an exception in cases of a natural disaster or a declaration of emergency by federal, state or local government officials. Voluntary overtime is also exempted. Mr. Speaker, no employer should be allowed to force an employee to work overtime or face termination, unless there is a situation that requires immediate emergency action. In other cases, employees should have the right to refuse overtime. If workers are physically and psychologically able to work additional hours, that should be their choice; it should not be the decision of a supervisor or hospital administrator. In the health care field, the issue is not just employees' rights. More importantly, it is an issue of patient safety. When nurses are forced to put in long overtime hours on a regular basis against their own better judgment, it puts patents at risk. A nurse should not be on the job after the 15th or 16th consecutive hour, especially after he or she has told a supervisor ``I can't do this, I've been on the job too many hours today.'' Mr. Speaker, nursing is a physically and mentally demanding occupation. By the end of a regular shift a nurse is exhausted. Health care experts and common sense tell us that long hours take a toll on mental alertness, and mandatory overtime under such conditions can result in inadvertent and unintentional medical mistakes--medication errors, transcription errors, and judgment errors. When a nurse is tired, it is much more difficult to deliver quality, professional care to patients. Increasingly, however, nurses are being forced to work 16, 18, or even 20 consecutive hours in hospitals all across our nation. Studies have shown that when a worker (especially a health care worker) exceeds 12 hours of work, and is fatigued, the likelihood that he or she will make an error increases. A report of the Institute of Medicine on medication errors substantiates these common sense assumptions. The report states that safe staffing and limits on mandatory overtime are essential components to prevent medication errors. An investigative report by The Chicago Tribune found that patient safety was sacrificed when reductions in hospital staff resulted in registered nurses working long hours of overtime because they were more likely to make serious medical errors. The report found that nursing services were deliberately cut in order to preserve historic profit levels. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to report that this legislation has broad support from the individuals most involved in this matter and the associations and organizations that represent them. These include the American Nurses Association (ANA), the California Nurses Association (CNA), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Black Nurses Association and others. It is also supported by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents nurses and health care workers at our nation's veterans' hospitals. Mr. Speaker, we need to give nurses more power to decide when overtime hours hurt their job performance. A nurse knows better than anyone--better than his or her supervisor and certainly better than a profit-driven hospital administrator--when he or she is so exhausted that continuing to work could jeopardize the safety of patients. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to know that forcing nurses to work 12 or 16 hours at a time is a prescription for bad health care. Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to allow hospitals to force nurses to work so many hours that the health and safety of patients are put at risk. I urge my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor and support the Registered Nurses' and Patient's Protection Act.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to Gonzalo ``Sal'' Torres, an extraordinary city councilman and community leader from Daly City, California. Sal, who also served as Mayor of Daly City, was recently re-elected to the city council and has been honored as ``one of the top 20 lawyers under 40'' by the newspaper California Law Business. Sal has demonstrated his commitment to excellence and his civic concern since he was a student of psychology at UCLA. He received the Chancellor's Marshall Honors for his academic accomplishment as well as his participation in various community service projects, including the Amigos Del Barrio Tutorial program. Sal was the Director of this excellent program which matched over 200 under privileged elementary school students with college students who offered various types of academic support. Sal's civic concern with the Hispanic community continued following his graduation from UCLA in 1983 in his work with Hispanic Consumer Advocates, the first consumer affairs radio show in Los Angeles to be broadcast entirely in Spanish. Mr. Speaker, Sal earned awards for scholarship and advocacy on many occasions during his legal education at the University of San Francisco School of Law. These awards included the Judge Harold J. Haley Award and the Student Bar Association Award. Today Sal puts his legal education to good use as Assistant General Counsel to Tomen Agro Inc., where he handles international commerce, anti-trust and trademark matters, and public relations. The heavy demands of his profession have in no way limited Sal's commitment to community service. If anything, the list of community activities in which Sal has been involved has grown since the beginning of his professional career. Sal has been an active participant in the State Bar Association's Human Rights Committee and the Volunteer Legal Services Program of the San Francisco Bar. He has volunteered to take San Mateo youths on probation to clean up graffiti as part of Daly City's anti-graffiti program. He is also the mentor for Unity 2000, an organization that aspires to change negative stereotypes about local teenagers. Sal has also been the General Counsel to San Mateo County's Latino Leadership Council, a remarkable organization that strives to educate the general public on social, political, and economic issues that affect the Latino community. He worked as the Newsletter Editor and as one of the Directors of the San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association. Sal also managed to find time to host a weekly public affairs television show that focuses on issues of concern to the Latino community. This already extensive list only begins to describe Sal's endeavors to improve the community and the lives of those around him. Mr. Speaker, Sal's service and dedication to Daly City deserves special commendation. He was first elected to the City Council in 1996. The economic prosperity which the city has enjoyed has given him and his fellow council members an opportunity to make an important contribution to the health and vitality of the city. Daly City has been able to implement a $40 million capital improvement program that is creating new community centers, libraries, and improved parks and playgrounds. Sal has also demonstrated the capacity to handle crisis situations. He worked to secure funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which helped to evacuate and reimburse the residents of 30 seaside homes that were dangerously close to slipping off a cliff following severe winter storms. The residents of Daly City are truly fortunate to have Sal's energy and intelligence to advocate their interests. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to Sal Torres. He has been an outstanding leader whose civic concern and whose dedication to public service should be an inspiration for all of us. I think the advice that Sal gives to the teenagers whom he mentors best describes this spirit: ``Never give up. Follow your heart. If you are persistent and believe in your heart that you can do it, nothing can ever stop you."

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress we voted to adopt a resolution which expressed the serious concern of this house for the inclusion of the FPO political party in the government of Austria. At that time, the House expressed ``its opposition to the anti-democratic, racist and xenophobic views that have been expressed by Jeorg Haider and other leaders of the FPO, and, because of these publicly expressed views, to state its opposition to the party's participation in the Austrian Government.'' It was my hope in introducing that resolution and in bringing about the debate it in this house that the leaders of the FPO and the people of Austria would move away from the racist, anti-Semitic, and xenophobic rhetoric that has so tarnished and tainted the image of Austria. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that our efforts have not had their fully desired effect, but there has been some indication of progress-- not with the FPO and its leader Jeorg Haider, but perhaps with the people of Vienna. In yesterday's issue of The New York Times, American pollster and political analyst Stanley B. Greenberg--the husband of our distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro--wrote a particularly insightful piece about his own personal experiences in the last few weeks in Austria. His report indicates that the venomous anti- Semitism, anti-foreign rhetoric continues to pollute the speeches of Jeorg Haider and other leaders of the FPO. At the same time the people of Vienna in last Sunday's mayoral election gave the FPO 8 percent fewer votes than the party received in the previous election. I welcome that trend, but I also wish to note the one fifth--20 percent--of the voters in Vienna, a sophisticated and cosmopolitan city of international reputation, cast their ballots for the FPO and its racist and xenophobic platform. Mr. Speaker, I submit Stan Greenberg's excellent personal essay from the March 27th issue of The New York Times to be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to give thoughtful consideration to his excellent article. [From The New York Times, March 27, 2001] A Strange Waltz in Vienna (By Stanley B. Greenberg) Vienna.--I am an American Jew, yet found myself in Vienna under attack by Jorg Haider, one of Europe's more notorious anti-Semitic politicians. I was in Vienna doing what I normally do, conducting polls and providing advice to political leaders and their campaigns--this time for the Social Democratic candidate for mayor, the incumbent, Michael Haupl. I had provided similar services for Bill Clinton and Al Gore, Tony Blair, Nelson Mandela and Ehud Barak. As a rule, I keep to the background, offering my ideas privately and far away from the TV cameras. Vienna was to be different. Mr. Haider led the Freedom Party to prominence by attacking foreigners and Jews, expressing admiration for some of Hitler's policies and championing some populist ideas of his own. His party got 27.9 percent of the vote here in the local election in 1996. Speaking before his party convention, Mr. Haider declared, ``Haupl has a strategist called Greenberg,'' eliciting giggles in the room. ``He specially flew him in from the East Coast.'' For Mr. Haider, ``East Coast'' means New York City and powerful Jews, the people who brought down Austrian president Kurt Waldheim and have tried to extract reparations for the Jewish victims of Nazi aggression. Mr. Haider spoke more about the foreigner, then intoned: ``Dear friends, you have the choice on 25 March between spin-doctor Greenberg from the East Coast or the Viennese hearts.'' This was greeted by massive applause. I was not alone in the line of fire; Haider had singled out Ariel Muzicant, leader of the Jewish community in Vienna, for derision. He scoffed at his given name, which is also the name of a popular washing powder. And Mr. Haider wondered mockingly how ``anyone with such a name can have such dirty hands,'' economically summoning up the ``pollution'' fears and class-struggle stereotypes of 1930's anti-Semitism. Mr. Haider's candidate in Vienna, Helene Partik-Pable, spoke of foreigners who ``won't integrate.'' ``They carry on with their own life-style,'' she said. ``That leads to tensions involving noise, dirt and so on.'' She further declared, ``We need to introduce zero immigration.'' My first reaction was a certain pride in being attacked by Mr. Haider. But that was bravado, on the whole. The refrain of ``East Coast'' was unnerving. One Saturday, after touring the city, I went to the Naschmarkt. The air carried many inviting scents--Austrain sausages on the grill, and Chinese stir-fry, the fruity tang of olives pickling in open tubs, Turkish doner rotating on a vertical skewer. So many aromas, most of which Mr. Haider would wish away. I accidentally bumped into Mayor Haupl, who was campaigning there. A few of the TV cameras turned to film me, and I did my best to disappear without seeming to pull a trench coat across my face. I was determined to avoid becoming a TV image two weeks before the election. The notion entered my mind of other Jews hiding, seeking anonymity, in an earlier age. But I soon realized I was in a different time. I have been given the chance--denied my relatives in Eastern Europe, decades ago--to fight. With polls and focus groups, I helped develop issues and themes to deny Mr. Haider what he trives on, namely voters frustrated and alienated and looking for foreigners to blame. The Social Democrats made a new effort to harness social changes that many Austrians find frightening--by encouraging high- technology employment, investing more in schools and public transport and enhancing retirement security. I also came to realize that I was not alone in Austria. Mr. Haider closed his campaign with a flurry of neighborhood rallies continuing the refrain about the ``East Coast.'' The Social Democrats finished with a rally of some 2000 supporters jammed into the Museumsquartier, the Hapsburgs' former stables. Mayor Haupl concluded his last campaign address with a warning about Mr. Haider: ``His attacks against the East Coast and against our consultant Greenberg, against the president of the Jewish community'' make him ``personally responsible'' for ``anti-Semitism'' ``This policy is against all of us,'' Mayor Haupl said. On Sunday Vienna voters made their choices. Mr. Haider's Freedom Party lost almost one-third of its support, plummeting eight percentage points from the previous high. The Social Democrats made historic gains, taking up those eight points and winning an absolute majority on the city council. I could focus on the fact that, last Sunday, one in five people in one of Europe's most tolerant and progressive cities voted for the anti-Semite. But I prefer to dwell on the fact that I had the opportunity to help drive back one of the dark forces of our time and I did not fight alone.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell addressed the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) here in Washington. His remarks were outstanding. He set forth the Bush Administration's views and policy on America's relations with our strategic ally Israel and on the search for peace in that troubled and difficult region of the world. Secretary Powell brings great depth of knowledge and understanding of our nations foreign and security policy. Our country is indeed well served to have a person of such broad international experience and distinction having the principal responsibility for the conduct of American foreign policy. Mr. Speaker, Secretary Powell's address to the AIPAC conference are of such importance that I request they be placed in the Record. I urge all of my colleagues in the House to read and carefully consider his excellent and thoughtful remarks. Remarks at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Secretary Colin L. Powell Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you, Tim, for that very kind introduction. It's a great pleasure to be back here to speak to AIPAC. Amazing that it has been ten years. And it is especially charming to be introduced as the son of an immigrant to the United States who entered the shmata business. I haven't heard that in a long time. There are many people here who don't know what that means, but I do. For those of you who were here ten years ago, you remember that there was a lot of speculation at that time that I was absolutely fluent in Yiddish. I did nothing to dispel the speculation. And when I was walking offstage to confirm it, I said, ``Well, yes, I do understand a bissel.'' But I am pleased to be here this morning, and especially to see so many friends in the room. AIPAC has a long and commendable record of promoting the unique relationship that exists between the United States and Israel. Both countries are better for your efforts, and so I thank and congratulate you for all you have done over the years. We meet today in a world that is much different than that world of ten years ago, a world that is changing still more every day before our eyes. Ours is a world no longer defined by competition between two rival theological superpower blocs, the red and the blue side of the map; no longer engaged in a competition that had the potential to destroy humankind in a matter of minutes. Instead, today we find ourselves involved in complex relationships that defy easy, Cold War red-and-blue characterizations of being either friend or foe. And making matters even more complicated is the reality that there are new powerful phenomena that affect the way we interact with each other. Ideas and dollars and drugs and terrorists cross national boundaries at the speed of light with impunity as a result of the information and technology revolutions. Old concepts of borders and political definitions are being shaken by the information and technology revolutions. And all of this presents the United States with an array of new opportunities, but also new and difficult challenges. The Bush Administration is only two months old, so taking stock of how we are going to deal with this new world is a bit premature. Still, some central aspects of our foreign policy are emerging. As President Bush highlighted in his address to Congress on February 27th, we are committed to doing everything we can to promote freedom and open markets around the world. That is what reshaping this world, the possibility of open markets and freedom reaching into the darkest corners of the world. We are also committed to gaining trade promotion authority from the Congress so that we can expand the horizons and dimensions of world commerce for the benefit of all peoples of the world. And we are committed to creating a new strategic framework, one defined by lower levels of nuclear weapons and a greater role for missile defense. This is time to change the nuclear equation of mutual assured destruction to a more sensible strategic arrangement. Little of this can happen if we work alone. President Bush has made it clear that a hallmark of our foreign policy will be the need to consult and work closely with friends and allies. Such collaboration, for example, is at the core of our policy with respect to Iraq. Tim touched on it a moment ago. Iraq is still a challenge which is receiving early attention from the Bush Administration. Our goal is to strengthen the international coalition that for a decade has helped to keep the peace in this important part of the world. And during my recent trip to the region, I discussed with friends across the region how best to continue to prevent the Iraqi regime from acquiring or developing weapons of mass destruction or the means to reconstitute its military forces. As a result of those consultations, we are now exploring ways to strengthen the arms control elements of the UN sanctions, while addressing the legitimate humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. And we believe this can be done and must be done to protect the children and the people of the region from these terrible weapons. We will have more to say about Iraq following the completion of our policy review, and after further discussions with our key partners. The same holds true for our policy towards Iran. We are studying Iran in considerable depth within the new team. Even now, however, it is apparent that certain aspects of Iranian Government behavior--the support for terrorism, repression of the rights of the Iranian people, especially those of Jewish descent, unfairly charged and harshly imprisoned--are of deep concern. This is of deep concern to the United States and to the American people, and we will not turn aside and ignore this kind of behavior. We are also concerned about Iranian efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and to increase its conventional military strength. Indeed, I have gone so far as to raise with senior Russian officials the role that Russia is playing in these dangerous and destabilizing efforts. We will not overlook what Russia is doing to cause this sort of problem. At the same time, we are aware of the intellectual and political foment taking place within Iran. Things are happening, things are changing, and we will continue to watch these developments closely and hopefully. Clearly there is a great deal going on around the world that merits our attention, from the Persian Gulf to North Korea, and from Macedonia to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But my focus this morning will be on the Middle East and, in particular, on Israel and on the search for peace. And let me begin with Israel. As Governor George W. Bush said to your conference a year ago, America and Israel have a special friendship. Ladies and gentlemen, I am here today to reaffirm this friendship. It involves every aspect of life. From the realms of politics and economics to those of security and culture, this relationship is strong. This relationship between fellow democracies is and will remain rock solid. It is an unconditional bond that is both deep and wide, one based on history, on interests, on values, and on principle. We are dedicated to preserving this special relationship with Israel and the Israeli people. We recognize that Israel lives in a very dangerous neighborhood. So we will work, we will look for ways to strengthen and expand our valuable strategic cooperation with Israel so that we can help preserve Israel's qualitative military edge. Our collaboration in missile defense is one prominent area that comes to mind in this regard. The simple fact of the matter is we believe that a secure Israel within international recognized borders remains a cornerstone of the United States foreign policy. There is no substitute. For me, this is not just policy; it is also personal. I have traveled to Israel on many occasions, as a young general working for the Secretary of Defense, as National Security Advisor to President Reagan, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for President Bush, and just a few weeks ago as Secretary of State for the latest President Bush. No matter in what capacity I visited, my reaction was always the same. Israel is a country blessed with men and women of extraordinary talent and vision and courage. From the moment of my first visit, I committed myself to doing all that I could do to make sure that the people of Israel would always have the support they needed from me and from the United States so that they could live in safety. We meet here this morning ten years after the liberation of Kuwait, and almost ten years since the 1991 Madrid Conference that for the first time brought Israel and all of her immediate neighbors face to face. As then-President George Bush said, ``They had come to Madrid on a mission of hope to begin work on the just, lasting and comprehensive settlement to the conflict in the Middle East, to seek peace for a part of the world that in the long memory of man has known far too much hatred, anguish and war.'' Since Madrid, we have seen some remarkable achievements. Like many of you, I was there on the South Lawn of the White House in September of 1993 to witness the signing of the Declaration of Principles that laid the foundation for subsequent Israeli-Palestinian agreements, that provided most of the Palestinian people with meaningful control over their own fate, and most Israelis with greater security. I will never forget the famous handshake in that moment of high hope. Just over a year later, in October 1994, we saw the signing of the Israeli-Jordan peace treaty that ended the state of conflict between these two neighbors and resulted in the opening of embassies. More recently, in May of last year, there was complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon under UN Security Council 425. These momentous developments were bracketed by two important events: the repeal nearly a decade ago of the odious Zionism as Racism Resolution in the United Nations General Assembly. And in May 2000 Israel's joining the Western Europe and Others group, the first time Israel has gained representation in the UN regional grouping. Unfortunately, as we all know too well, these and other achievements are neither permanent nor sufficient. What has been done can all too easily be undone. This Administration inherited the Middle East situation in which the prospects for peace have dimmed dramatically under a seemingly endless cycle of violence, and an almost breakdown of the trust, mutual confidence and hope that had been built up in recent years. Bullets and bombs have replaced words. Incitement and hurtful rhetoric have replaced quiet efforts to enhance mutual understanding. Negotiations are in abeyance. It is not my intention to spend time here today theorizing as to how we arrived at this point, or suggesting what could or should have been done by one or another party at any particular junction. What is clear, though, is that the impact on Israelis of failed negotiations at Camp David and the ensuing violence has been nothing less than tragic. Hundreds have been injured, scores have been killed. And for every one of these losses a family grieves. For every one of these losses, a dream is destroyed. The sense of personal security is far weaker. The economy has suffered significantly. The impact has also been tragic for Palestinians. Thousands have been injured. Hundreds have died. And for every one of these losses, a family grieves. For every one of these losses, a dream is destroyed. The Palestinian economy is in shambles, with unemployment skyrocketing and growth absent. Internal and external closures have disrupted normal movement. The net result of all of this is that Israelis have come to question whether a peaceful arrangement with the Palestinians is possible, and Palestinians have come to question whether peaceful coexistence with Israel is compatible with their own political aspirations. We must not allow these questions to come to be answered in the negative. We cannot allow the dream of peace to perish. It would be a tragedy for the region. I have no magic formula. I cannot snap my fingers and make the current situation go away or turn it around. What I can do, however, is to present some basic ideas that will guide the approach of the United States under the Bush Administration as we approach the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute in the future--a few ideas that we believe can contribute to the prospects for peace. First and foremost, the violence must stop. Violence is corrosive of everything the parties in the region hope to achieve. Violence saps the psychological well-being of every child, parent and grandparent. Violence makes every life insecure. Violence provokes armed reaction, not compromises. Leaders have the responsibility to denounce violence, strip it of legitimacy, stop it. Violence is a dead end. Second, the status quo is costly and, if allowed to drift, will only lead to greater tragedy. Neither Israelis nor Palestinians are served by the current situation. Both sides require a dialogue that will lead to mutually acceptable political, economic and security arrangements--be they transitional or permanent, partial or whole. Third, the parties themselves hold the keys to their own futures. Peace will only be at hand when leaders have the courage and the vision to make difficult decisions and defend them to their own publics. Unilateral actions sure to provoke the other side should be avoided. Turning to the United States or other outside parties to pressure one or another party, or to impose a settlement, is not the answer. Debating and passing new UN resolutions is unlikely to make a contribution. In the end, there is no substitute for the give and take of direct negotiations. Peace is a cooperative endeavor. At the end of the day, Israelis and Palestinians will either be partners or antagonists. Fourth, both parties have a stake in the restoration of normal economic life. They need to work to rebuild the level of trust and confidence that had existed. Israelis and Palestinians must each take steps to build confidence with the other to provide one another with evidence that their respective leaders can then point to in order to justify their own compromises. And fifth, the United States stands ready to assist, not insist. (Applause.) Again, only the parties themselves can determine the pace and scope and content of any negotiations. Each party knows full well what the other values most dearly. Each party knows full well what the other fears most deeply. Progress will only come as statements and behavior come to reflect this knowledge. Here, history has two useful things to teach us: Israelis and Palestinians have the ability to make peace; and peace arrived at voluntarily by the parties themselves is likely to prove more robust and able to withstand the inevitable pressures and setbacks than a peace widely viewed as developed by others--or worse yet, imposed. The United States will stay involved. We have no intention of ignoring our responsibilities or the role we have played in the past. The truth is, we could not turn our backs on this part of the world even if we wanted to. Vital US interests are at stake. The United States has a vital interest in the security of Israel. We also have vital economic and strategic interests at stake in the region. And Americans care, care deeply, about the human toll that is the result of violence. We understand full well that these interests and concerns will be served best by a peace that both Israelis and Palestinians can embrace. For these reasons, the United States will not be silent. We will speak out if we hear words or see actions that contribute to confrontation or detract from the promise of negotiations. We will not strive for some arbitrary measure of even-handedness when responsibility is not evenly shared. Other states of the region and beyond have a role to play in stabilizing the environment for Israelis and Palestinians. These other states should be voices of moderation, counseling pragmatism and realism, and providing support for acts of statesmanship. It is also important that they match words with deeds. I note, for example, that no Arab state now maintains a resident ambassador in Israel. This is most unfortunate. My emphasis today on Israel and the Palestinians does not signal a lack of interest in other potential areas for diplomacy. On the contrary, the United States continues to support a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, one based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and the formula of land for peace. We very much hope that Israel and Syria and Israel and Lebanon will find a mutually acceptable means to resume talks on each of these two tracks. In the meantime, we strongly urge and have strongly urged all the parties in the tense areas touching Israel, Lebanon and Syria to exercise maximum restraint and avoid any provocative and destabilizing activities. The Israeli decision to withdrawal from southern Lebanon creates a major opportunity for stability that should not be squandered. This week, President Bush and I, along with other senior members of this Administration, will have the opportunity to sit down with the new Prime Minister of Israel. I have known Prime Minister Sharon for many years. I look forward to resuming the conversation that began during my recent trip while Mr. Sharon was still the Prime Minister-elect. He now has a government in place, and President Bush will want to hear his views on reinforcing our bilateral relations, on his intentions with respect to peace negotiations, and on regional issues of mutual importance. In the weeks ahead, several of the most prominent leaders of the Arab world, including President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan, will also be visiting Washington. Here again, we look forward to having the benefit of the perspectives of these good friends of the United States. The United States has no monopoly in wisdom. We are open, indeed anxious, to hear the views of others, to hear the views of all, to take into account the aspirations of all, the needs of all, and to determine what it is we can all do together to promote the prospects for peace in the region. The need to reverse recent momentum could not be more apparent. It is difficult to speak of the contemporary Middle East and not speak of tragedy. Here we stand, at the dawn of the 21st century, and here with the potential to bring more peace and prosperity and freedom to more people than have ever enjoyed such fruits of life in the history of the world. The Middle East stands out, but hardly in a way to be envied. Too much of today's Middle East is mired in old disputes, too many resources are being devoted to the instruments of war, too many lives are being cut short. I look forward to the day when the children of this region--all the children of this region--can grow up to be full participants in their own societies and enjoy the fruits of globalization. This can only happen when parents and schools teach peace and not hatred when people are able to focus on the quality of their lives, a Middle East where normal people lead normal lives, where all the peoples of the region can share in the blessings of the blessed land that they occupy. Ladies and gentlemen, I try not to make a habit of quoting myself, but I will break this rule today for two reasons: first, I prefer not to end these remarks on so sober a note; and second, some words are worth repeating, wherein the repetition may communicate not only an idea, but the reality that the idea has endured. With this in mind, I want to go back ten years to March 19th, 1991, when I last had the opportunity to address this distinguished organization. At that time, I said the following: ``We have stood with Israel since the day of its founding; we have stood with Israel throughout its history; we have demonstrated again and again that our roots are intertwined, as they are with all nations who share our beliefs in openness and democracy. So let there be no question about our commitment to Israel; let there be no question that America will stand by Israel today; and let there be no question that America will stand by Israel in the future.'' Today I am proud to say these words remain true. Today I am proud to stand in front of you, not as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces of the United States, but as the Secretary of State of the United States of America. The Secretary of State has been given the privilege to helping President Bush formulate and execute his foreign policy, and we will have no greater priority than to work with Israel, to work with the Palestinians, to work with all the others in the region to bring peace, a peace that surpasses all understanding of peace that the region needs. I'm a former person of war, now I will pursue peace for all the peoples of the region. Shalom.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to make note of the retirement of long-time House International Relations Committee staff member, Shelly Livingston. Shelly started with the Committee in 1974 and in 1980 assumed the job of Budget/Financial Administrator, in which she developed the committee's budget requests and generally oversaw all aspects of the committee's finances. No matter how busy or pressured Shelly was, often working under tight deadlines, she always found the time to respond to the innumerable questions and requests of Members and staff with competence and good humor. There is no question that Shelly will be greatly missed by her many friends on the committee staff and throughout the Hill. On their behalf I want to thank Shelly for her professionalism, discretion, and kindness throughout her years with us. I hope Shelly will carry our affection with her as she begins her retirement. I have no doubt she will add to her many accomplishments as she pursues her interests in the years to come.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, over the years, much attention and praise has been rightfully lavished upon the ``Righteous Gentiles'' of the countries which were occupied by the Nazis during World War II, who risked their lives to save their Jewish countrymen. Monuments have been erected around the world in their honor, and their stories have been repeated for younger generations to learn from the actions of these honorable people. From the Avenue of the Righteous in Israel's Yad Vashem, to the cinematic jewel Schindler's List, the brave men and women who stood up to the Nazi's persecution of the Jewish people rightly deserve all the accolades they have received. Mr. Speaker, because I believe that all tales of the righteous men and women who risked much to save the lives of their Jewish countrymen deserve to be told, I would like to call attention to an excellent piece of research by Swiss businessman, Meir Wagner, that was recently published. In his book, The Righteous of Switzerland: Heroes of the Holocaust, Mr. Wagner shares with his readers more than forty tales of heroism and strong moral fortitude that took place during one of the world's darkest periods of history. His book tells the little-known stories of brave Swiss citizens who saved thousands of Jewish lives during World War Two. These Swiss gentiles risked opposition, hardship, danger and death in aiding their fellow countrymen, a sharp contrast to the official neutrality that their government pursued. Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud Meir Wagner for the diligent effort he put forth in researching this important book. It required him to comb painstakingly through years of archival material and to conduct numerous interviews with participants and observers. While this was an arduous task, it allowed Mr. Wagner to weave a rich tale by drawing directly from the testimonials of both those saved, as well as eyewitnesses to the events. Mr. Speaker, this book, The Righteous of Switzerland: Heroes of the Holocaust shares with us the diplomats, Red Cross delegates, clergymen, nuns, and others of Switzerland whose examples of courage and bravery were moral beacons at a time of unparalleled darkness. I urge my colleagues to read this outstanding book.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I might consume. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 67 expresses support for increased United States funding for international tuberculosis treatment and eradication efforts. I would first like to commend my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), for introducing this resolution. This resolution before us today calls for increasing U.S. investment substantially in international tuberculosis control within the Foreign Aid budget for fiscal year 2002. The Reyes resolution also recognizes the importance of supporting and expanding domestic efforts to eliminate TB and calls on international leaders to commit to putting an end to the worldwide TB epidemic. Madam Speaker, March 24 is World TB Day, the day dedicated to raising awareness of the terrible toll inflicted by tuberculosis and to increase support for fighting TB. It is, therefore, appropriate that we are taking up this resolution today, just a few days prior to World Tuberculosis Day. Madam Speaker, tuberculosis kills 2 million people every single year. That is one person every 15 seconds. Globally, tuberculosis is the leading cause of death of young women and the leading cause of death of people with HIV/AIDS. The World Health Organization, Madam Speaker, estimates that one-third of the world's population is infected with bacteria that cause tuberculosis, including an estimated 10 million to 15 million people here in the United States. Tuberculosis is spreading as a result of inadequate treatment, and it is a disease that knows no national borders. In order to control TB in the United States in a more effective manner, it is critical that we ensure the effectiveness of TB- controlled programs globally. There is a highly effective and inexpensive treatment for tuberculosis. It is recommended by the World Health Organization as the best method for treating TB. The strategy is known as Directly Observed Treatment Short Course, DOTS for short. It produces high cure rates, prevents the further spread of the infection, and prevents the development of strains of multi-drug resistant TB. Yet fewer than one in five of those ill with tuberculosis are receiving this treatment. Based on the estimates of the World Bank, Madam Speaker, this treatment is one of the most cost-effective health interventions available, costing less than $100 to save a life. It can produce cure rates of up to 95 percent, even in the poorest countries. Madam Speaker, I think the United States should commit more of our resources to support this treatment globally. It is the only way that we will be able to stop TB here in the United States and across the globe. I believe that passage of the Reyes resolution will signal that this House of Representatives strongly supports increased funding for the global battle against tuberculosis. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) for introducing this resolution, and I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 67. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), my friend and colleague, and the author of this most important resolution.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my good friend.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join in marking the 180th anniversary of the independence of Greece today. The winning of independence almost two centuries ago marked the culmination of struggle of the Greek people to restore the ideals of democracy established by their ancestors. In 1821, under the leadership of Alexandros Ypsilantis, the Greek people fought together to establish Greek sovereignty. The courageous efforts of Ypsilantis planted a seed in the hearts of the Greek people. This seed grew into a flourishing movement that led to religious freedom, a reinvigorated sense of cultural and national identity, and the long awaited return to the democratic ideals born in Ancient Greece. Madam Speaker, while we are here today to pay tribute to the anniversary of Greek Independence, I want also to pay tribute to the Greek-American community, which offers us a cultural bridge between our two countries. This community justly takes pride that Greek ideals contributed to America's revolution even before the Greeks themselves had the opportunity to succeed in their campaign for freedom. It is important for us to commemorate this day together to reaffirm our common democratic heritage. The Founding Fathers of our nation were inspired and motivated by the Athenian model of democracy. In 370 B.C., Plato wrote in The Republic, ``Democracy is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a kind of equality to equals and unequals alike.'' As participants in a representative democracy, those of us in this Congress recognize out great debt to the ancient Greek philosophers who provided much of the foundation of American democracy. Madam Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in observing Greek Independence Day. As a member of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, I take this opportunity to salute the Greek people for their historic achievement of independence nearly two centuries ago, and I recommit myself to work for closer ties between the people of the United States and the people of Greece.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I merely wish to identify myself with the comments concerning the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) be allowed to control the balance of the time on the Democratic side.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I first would like to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for introducing this important resolution. I rise in strong support of the resolution. El Salvador has suffered two devastating earthquakes within the span of one single month. The first of these was on the 13th of January at a magnitude of 7.6. It killed 827 people, injured about 5,000 others, and destroyed or damaged 222,000 homes. On February 13, the second earthquake, measuring 6.6, struck El Salvador again, causing more death and destruction in this beleaguered nation. About a million and a half Salvadorans have been affected, almost one in every four of the country's population. The equivalent in the United States, Madam Speaker, would be that the entire populations of Florida and New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois would have been affected. On top of these two massive earthquakes, Salvadorans are coping with scores of smaller quakes, now over 5,000 aftershocks. Of course this follows Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and years of civil war preceding it. We must respond on a scale befitting both of the disasters and the respect and friendship we have for the people of El Salvador. Now, the administration recently announced some additional assistance for El Salvador. But many of us feel that this has not been anywhere nearly adequate. We were even more surprised and concerned to learn that the earthquake aid that President Bush has pledged has simply taken away from other priorities in El Salvador and the entire region at a time when Latin America has been suffering from a spate of natural disasters. How long, Madam Speaker, are we going to continue this policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul? The economies of the affected countries are strained beyond endurance, and much of the progress we have made over the past 2 decades has been reversed. We spent billions during the 1980s to promote democracy in these countries. Now is the time to help them move forward. The President declared our relationship in the Western Hemisphere to be a foreign policy priority. Yet, I ask what real commitment is there in terms of economic development assistance that we intend to put into this region? We should vote to pass this resolution today. But more importantly, we should commit ourselves to do more and to do it soon. I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 41. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last week, with the support of 48 of our colleagues, I introduced comprehensive domestic child labor law reform--H.R. 961, The Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act. This much-needed legislation will provide greater protection for American children in the workplace. The unfortunate exploitation of child labor in America is not a thing of the past. It is a problem that continues to threaten the welfare and education of millions of American young people. Unless we swiftly enact this important legislation, children will continue to be employed in jobs that place their lives in danger, and students will continue to struggle with the competing interests of holding a job and gaining an education at a time when education should be ``priority number one''. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. The exploitation of child labor is a national problem that continues to jeopardize the health, education and lives of many of our nation's children and teenagers. In farm fields and in fast-food restaurants all over this country, employers are breaking the law by hiring under-age children. Many of these youth put in long, hard hours and often work under dangerous conditions. Our legislation seeks to eliminate the all- too-common exploitation of children--working long hours late into the night while school is in session, and working under hazardous conditions. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to report that in this country, a young person is killed on the job every five days. Every 40 seconds a child is injured on the job. It is appalling to learn that the occupational injury rate for children and teens is more than twice as high than it is for adults. These statistics are a national disgrace. It is totally unacceptable for a civilized, advanced society such as ours to have our children injured and killed on the job. Mr. Speaker, The Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act would establish new, tougher penalties for willful violations of child labor laws that result in the death or serious bodily injury to a child. Not only does the bill increase fines and prison sentences for willful violation of our laws, but it will also assure that the names of child labor law violators are publicized. Nothing will deter corporate giants more than negative publicity. Negative publicity is one of the most effective tools we have to change corporate behavior. While people often associate the evils of child labor with Third World countries, American children and teenagers are also exploited on the job. Our economy has changed significantly since the days when teenagers held after school jobs at the ``Mom and Pop'' grocery store or soda shop on the corner. In today's low unemployment economy, teenagers are hired to fill-in or replace jobs previously held by adults in full-time positions. They work in franchise fast food restaurants and national supermarket chains. Many high-school students are working 30 to 40 hours a week, and they often work well past midnight. Research shows that long hours on the job take away time needed for schoolwork or family and extracurricular activities. The Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act sets limits on the amount of time students can work during the school year. This is important Mr. Speaker, because studies show that the more hours children work during the school year, the more likely they are to do poorly academically. Studies have also shown that children who work long hours also tend to use more alcohol and drugs. Mr. Speaker, The Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act will reduce the problem of children working long hours when school is in session, and it strengthens existing limitations on the number of hours children under 18 years of age can work on school days. The bill would eliminate all youth labor before school. After-school work would be limited to 15 or 20 hours per week, depending on the age of the child. Additionally our legislation will require better record keeping and reporting of child labor violations. It also prohibits minors from operating or cleaning certain types of dangerous equipment, and prohibits children from working under certain particularly hazardous conditions. Children working early in the morning before school or working late into the evening on days when school is in session is a serious problem facing our country. Recently, I met with students from Aragon High School of San Mateo, California, in my Congressional district. After talking about The Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act to these students, who were visiting our nation's capitol, the students spoke up and voiced their concerns about being required to work past 11 or later on school nights. Every one of these students spoke in favor of enacting The Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act. Mr. Speaker, our legislation also increases protection for children under the age of 14 who are migrant or seasonal workers in agriculture. Current labor laws allow children--even those under 10 years of age--to be employed in agriculture. Child farm laborers can work unlimited hours before and after school, and they are not even eligible for overtime pay. At the age of 14, or even earlier, children working in agriculture are using knives and machetes, operate dangerous machinery, and are exposed to dangerous toxic pesticides. In no other industry in this nation are children so exploited as they are in agriculture. These are not children working on family farms, these are children working for agribusiness, these are children exploited by agribusiness. I want to make it adamantly clear that as supporters of child labor reform we do not oppose young people working. I firmly believe that children must be taught the value of work. They need to learn the important lessons of responsibility, and they need to enjoy the rewards of working. It is not our aim to discourage employers from hiring young people. Rather, our goal is to ensure that the job opportunities available to young people are meaningful, safe and healthy and do not interfere with their important school responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, let me state unequivocally that we do not oppose children taking on after-school employment. What we oppose are the senseless deaths and needless injuries of our teenagers. We oppose the negative effects on academic achievement that result when children work excessive hours while school is in session. A solid education--not after-school employment--is the key to a successful future. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in cosponsoring The Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act. I urge swift enactment of meaningful child labor law reform legislation during this Congress.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, all of us who are active in the movement to protect Animals recently lost a compassionate and articulate colleague. It is with a heavy heart that I rise today and pay tribute to a true friend of the animal welfare movement and a dear friend of mine, Roger Caras. Mr. Speaker, Roger began his career in the film industry, but after 15 years as a motion picture executive, he left to follow his true calling, the study of animals in their natural habitats. This led him to a take position as the ``house naturalist'' on NBC Today Show and later as a special correspondent covering animals and the environment for ABC. From these important and highly visible positions, Roger was able to share his passion for animals with millions of Americans. Later in life, Roger became the President of the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). This is the oldest humane organization in the United States, and Roger served as its fourteenth President from 1991 to 1999. During his tenure, he was credited with transforming the ASPCA through the expansion of its national animal protection programs. Roger also played an integral role in strengthening the Society's public education programs and focusing on population control for animals rather than euthanizing unwanted animals. To this end, Roger decided to end the 100 year old relationship between the ASPCA and New York City in which the ASPCA collected and killed abandoned dogs, cats, and other animals for the city each year. Under his leadership, the Society also acquired and later expanded the first poison control center for Animals in the United States. Roger was also a prolific writer, leaving a rich legacy of thoughtful writing on animal welfare issues, including seventy books. His written works cover a full range of topics, from pet care to children's books. His fictionalized biographies of individual animals in their natural habitats were loved by children around the world. And to millions of dog lovers, Roger will always be remembered as the distinctive voice announcing the Westminister Dog Show at Madison Square Garden each February. Mr. Speaker, Roger Caras was an extraordinary man who devoted his life to ensuring that animals are treated with the respect and care they deserve. I am sure I speak for all friends of animals when I say that Roger will be truly missed. I invite my colleagues to join me in mourning the passing of this outstanding leader.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to Lynda Diane Mull, a dedicated advocate for our nation's two million migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Diane has recently resigned her position with the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs (AFOP) after 20 years of dedicated service. AFOP is a national federation of farmworker service, employment, and training providers who serve migrant and seasonal farmworkers in 49 states and Puerto Rico. AFOP's members are funded by the Department of Labor to provide direct services--jobs, training, housing, English classes, emergency assistance, and other vital services--to farmworkers through a network of more than 300 field offices located throughout rural America. As AFOP's Executive Director Diane helped build the organization into one of the nation's leading farmworker advocacy groups, as well as a leader in the fight to end abusive child labor, particularly in rural areas, in this country and around the world. Mr. Speaker, I have worked closely with Diane for many years in our attempt to protect farmworker children who toil in our nation's agricultural fields. As you know, hundreds of thousands of children who harvest fruits and vegetables are exposed to working conditions that many adults cannot endure. Hundreds of thousands of young people's immune systems are being placed in great risk of harm from toxic fertilizers and pesticides. Diane's career began as an Information/Education Specialist for North Carolina's Department of Human Resources, Division of Mental Health, where she coordinated community mental health, drug, and alcohol education for mental health centers and hospitals. In 1978, Diane began her efforts with farmworker programs, taking a position as a Job Development Specialist for Telamon Corporation. Late in 1978, she became Program Coordinator for Telamon's Georgia farmworker program, supervising seven field offices, and in late 1980 she was selected as Telamon's State Director for the West Virginia program. Diane was appointed Executive Director of the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs (AFOP) in 1981. At AFOP, she helped educate Members of Congress about the plight of the nation's farmworkers, as well as their employment and training needs. She worked tirelessly to improve resources to help the poorest of the poor. Seven years ago, Diane conceived and helped establish AFOP's AmeriCorps National Farmworker Environmental Education Program which has provided pesticide safety training to nearly 220,000 farmworkers in order to protect them from the dangers of toxic chemicals. The program has also enhanced the work skills and leadership abilities of more than 450 AmeriCorps members--many of them young people from farmworker families who have received over $1 million in education awards. Diane Mull has been active on numerous boards, commissions, federal advisory committees, and panels dealing with farmworker issues, including the National Child Labor Coalition, the National Children's Center on Childhood Agricultural Injury Prevention, the U.S. Department of Labor's National Stakeholders Forum, and others. She has been named to four federal advisory committees: the U.S. Department of Labor's Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Employment and Training Federal Advisory Committee, the Environmental Protection Agency's Children's Health Protection Federal Advisory Committee, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Regional Coordinating Council on Migrant Head Start, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Advisory Committee on International Child Labor Enforcement. Diane also founded and is the co-chair of the Children in the Fields Campaign, the domestic and international campaign to end the worst forms of child labor in agriculture. Over the years, Diane has worked tirelessly to publicize farmworker issues, even as she waged her own successful battle against cancer. She was instrumental in bringing about the Associated Press's five-part 1997 series entitled, ``Children for Hire,'' which played a dramatic role in bringing our nation's child labor problem to the public's attention. She also worked closely with Dateline NBC's ``Children of the Harvest,'' which aired in 1998. Most recently, she assisted Seventeen Magazine with its article ``We Are Invisible,'' which included one of Diane's many photos depicting child labor in agriculture. Diane Mull has received numerous awards in recognition of her contributions. In 1991, she was awarded the first National Award for Professional Staff Development by the National Association of Workforce Development Professionals. In 1994, she participated at the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe's Human Dimension Seminar in Warsaw, Poland representing the interest of U.S. migrant workers and the non-governmental organizations that serve them. In 1996, Diane was inducted into the National Farmworker Advocates Hall of Fame, and in June 1998, she spoke at a briefing on child labor before the International Labor Organization (ILO) in Geneva, Switzerland. In 1999, Diane founded the International Initiative to End Child Labor (IIECL), a non-profit organization whose sole mission is to end the most exploitative forms of child labor in the United States and around the world. In that same year, through Diane's voluntary efforts, IIECL received three grants working in partnership with AFL-CIO's American Center for International Labor Solidarity, the National Consumers League, and the International Labor Rights Fund. Throughout her career, Diane has testified on numerous occasions before both the House and Senate, and submitted hundreds of statements and testimony to the executive and legislative branches of the federal government on behalf of farmworkers and farmworker organizations. More recently, she addressed the First International Symposium on Micro- Enterprise in Obregon, Mexico in 1999 addressing child labor and youth employment issues. She returned to Mexico in August 2000 to complete a country survey on child labor in agriculture for the International Labor Rights Fund. In November, Diane left AFOP to take a new position at Creative Associates working with the United States Agency for International Development. She will oversee the development of innovative basic education programs to prevent child labor around the world. Additionally, she will brief Congress and USAID on international child labor developments, as well as provide training and technical assistance about child labor to U.S. AID global, regional, and mission- level staff in Asia, Latin America, Africa, and Europe. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in expressing our gratitude to Diane for her two decades of service on behalf of our nation's migrant and seasonal farmworkers. We wish her great success in her continuing work to prevent abusive child labor.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Peace Corps on its 40th anniversary, and commend the agency and its volunteers on the invaluable contribution they have made in promoting America's interests and values around the world since its founding in 1961. Forty years ago, President Kennedy challenged Americans to ``ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.'' His inspiring words launched the Peace Corps, which President Kennedy officially established by Executive Order on March 1, 1961. The response to the President's call for this bold experiment was swift and enthusiastic, with the first volunteers accepting the challenge and leaving for their overseas assignments less than six months later. Each successive generation has answered President Kennedy's call, expanding the Peace Corps' ranks and extending its reach every year. This year, more than 7,000 Peace Corps volunteers live and work alongside people in 76 countries. Over the course of the last four decades, a total of 162,000 volunteers in 134 countries have participated in this bold experiment. President Kennedy would be proud--and so should we. The Peace Corps has met with such extraordinary success because its mission resonates with Americans and with the millions of people across the globe whom it has served. By immersing themselves in local cultures and working side-by-side with everyday people in the countries they serve, Peace Corps volunteers have made a positive impact in a very personal way. They work with teachers and parents to improve access to education. They work with community groups and local governments to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases. They work with entrepreneurs to develop better business practices; with farmers to develop better farming methods; with communities to protect their local environment. And they are harnessing the information revolution to train students in computer use and to establish local Internet resource centers around the globe. The Peace Corps' work has made a critical contribution to America's national security. Born in the crucible of the Cold War as a means of preventing the false promise of Communism from taking hold in the developing world, it has adapted its mission for our global age to embrace all people struggling to survive and take advantage of the new opportunities of our times. Such work is critical to strengthen new democracies, encourage free markets, and promote human rights--all pillars of American foreign policy. Through the Peace Corps, people of foreign nations learn that America is a force for peace, justice and prosperity in the world. The Peace Corps has also come to symbolize for millions across the globe the boundless hope, practical ingenuity, and noble vision our Nation embodies. As such, it represents one of the most enduring legacies of President Kennedy, and one of the shining stars in the constellation of initiatives that constitute America's foreign policy. The Peace Corps is celebrating its milestone anniversary throughout the year with events that commemorate the agency's forty-year history and that raise awareness of its good work. I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to join me in celebrating the Peace Corps' success and wishing it success well into the future.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important foreign policy and defense issues the 107th Congress will consider is National Missile Defense. Our nation is indeed vulnerable to ballistic missile attack, and it is imperative that we take steps to protect ourselves from this threat. As we address this threat, however, it is critical that we adopt a cautious and comprehensive approach. In an article in today's Washington Post, our former National Security Advisor, the Honorable Samuel R. Berger, makes a compelling case for such an approach. As he asserts, we must be careful not to overlook the danger of attack by less conventional means, such as a terrorist strike or a weapon of mass destruction smuggled across our borders. We must also be careful not to undermine our defensive alliances, such as NATO, or needlessly provoke a new arms race with our former Cold War adversaries. As we move forward on these important issues, Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we not allow ourselves as a nation to be lulled into a false sense of security or let our guard down in other areas of our national defense. Mr. Speaker, I submit the entire text of the insightful article by Mr. Berger entitled ``Is This Shield Necessary?'' be placed in the Congressional Record. I urge my colleagues to review this article and to join me in engaging all aspects of the National Missile Defense debate in the coming months to ensure that whatever course we choose truly strengthen our national security and advance our national interests. Is This Shield Necessary? [From the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2001] (Samuel R. Berger) In the first weeks of the Bush administration, national missile defense has risen to the top of the national security agenda. Having wrestled with this issue over the last years of the Clinton administration, I believe it would be a mistake to proceed pell-mell with missile defense deployment as though all legitimate questions about the system had been answered. They have not. While the United States maintains strength unmatched in the world, the vulnerability of the American people to attack here at home by weapons of mass destruction is greater than ever. Dealing with our vulnerability to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons requires an ambitious, robust, comprehensive strategy. But 20 years and tens of billions of dollars later, national missile defense is still a question-ridden response to the least likely of the threats posed by these weapons: a long-range ballistic missile launched by an outlaw nation. President Clinton last year decided to continue research and development of national missile defense, but deferred a decision on deployment. In part, this was based on a judgment that we do not yet know whether it will work reliably. The Bush administration should reject arbitrary deadlines and, as part of Secretary Rumsfeld's laudable defense review, take a fresh look at the overall threat we face. Without question we need to broaden America's defenses against weapons of mass destruction. But plunging ahead with missile defense deployment before critical questions are answered is looking through the telescope from the wrong end: from the perspective of bureaucratically driven technology rather than that of the greatest vulnerabilities of the American people. President Reagan's global shield (SDI) has evolved into a more limited system aimed at defeating long-range missiles launched not by a major nuclear rival but by an irrational leader of a hostile nation, particularly North Korea, Iraq or Iran. Its premise is that an aggressive tyrant such as Saddam Hussein is less likely to be deterred than were the leaders of the Soviet Union by the prospect that an attack on us or our friends would provoke devastating retaliation. It is further suggested that lack of a defense could intimidate U.S. leadership: We might have hesitated to liberate Kuwait if we knew Saddam could have delivered a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon to the United States with a long-range ballistic missile. But why do we believe Saddam or his malevolent counterparts would be less susceptible to deterrence than Stalin or his successors? Indeed, dictators such as Saddam tend to stay in power so long because of their obsession with self- protection. And is it likely we would not use every means at our disposal to respond to a vital threat to our economic lifeline, even if it meant preemptively taking out any long- range missiles the other side might have? The fact is that a far greater threat to the American people is the delivery of weapons of mass destruction by means far less sophisticated than an ICBM: a ship, plane or suitcase. The tragedies of the USS Cole and sarin gas in the Tokyo subway show that lethal power does not need to ride on a long-range missile. We know that we increasingly are the target of a widespread network of anti-American terrorists. We know they are seeking to obtain weapons of mass destruction. If deterrence arguably doesn't work against hostile nations, it is even less so for fanatical terrorists with no clear home address. The real issue is what is the most cost-effective way to spend an additional 100 billion or more defense dollars to protect this country from the greatest WMD threats. In that broader context, is national missile defense our first priority? Is it wiser to continue research and development and explore alternative technologies while we invest in substantially intensifying the broad-scale, long-term effort against terrorist enemies? (Such an effort would include increased intelligence resources, heightened border security, even training of local police and public health officials to recognize a deadly biological agent.) The ultimate question is whether Americans will be more secure with or without a national missile defense. The answer is not self-evident. We can't build the system that is farthest along in development--a land-based one--without cooperation from our allies. Their misgivings derive in significant part from the prospect of abrogating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia; that could unravel the global arms control and nonproliferation system. It has been suggested that we could address Europeans' concerns by including them in our missile defense system or helping them build their own. But such an amalgamation would be more capable against Russia and thus more likely to stiffen its resistance to change in the ABM; it could also increase the chance Russia would respond in ways that would reduce strategic stability--for example by retaining multiple-warhead ICBMs it has agreed to eliminate. Of course no other country can ever have a veto over decisions we must take to protect our national security. But in making that judgment, we must understand that the basic logic of the ABM has not been repealed--that if either side has a defensive system the other believes can neutralize its offensive capabilities, mutual deterrence is undermined and the world is a less safe place. Then there is China. It is suggested that we can work this out with China by at least implicitly giving it a ``green light'' to build up its ICBM arsenal to levels that would not be threatened by our national missile defense. This strategy fails to take into account the dynamic it could unleash in Asia: Would China's missile buildup stimulate advocates of nuclear weapons in Japan? How would India view this ``separate peace'' between the United States and China? What effect would that have on Pakistan and the Koreas? Will we be more secure as Americans with a missile defense system or less secure? It is not a question that answers itself. But it is a question that requires answers.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before yielding to my next colleague, I want to recognize publicly the 6 years of distinguished service the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) spent as the distinguished chairman of our committee and welcome him in his new role as chairman of the Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations and I, as the new ranking member, jointly bring before this body an important resolution. And as we do so, I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his work on this resolution; and I want to express the hope that we will be able to work on a bipartisan basis on a full spectrum of issues that benefit the national interests of the United States. I rise, Mr. Speaker, in strong support of this resolution. The resolution has several aspects, and I would like to comment briefly on each of these. The resolution in the first place congratulates the Prime Minister- elect of Israel, Mr. Ariel Sharon, who won the most recent election a few days ago with a landslide victory. This Congress has congratulated all previous Prime Ministers of the State of Israel, a fellow democracy; and I know that my colleagues will join the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and me in expressing our congratulations to the newly elected Prime Minister. Our two governments, the government of the United States and the government of Israel, are not only close allies and friends, but we share a deep and abiding commitment to democratic values. As a matter of fact, since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, that state has fulfilled the dreams of its founders who envisioned a vigorous, open and stable democracy; and the centerpiece of that democracy is its system of free, competitive, and open elections. I find it particularly amusing that some of Israel's neighbors, who have never had free and open elections, now criticize the people of Israel for having participated yet again in free and open and democratic elections. Now our resolution urges Mr. Arafat to use his considerable influence and very significant resources to see that the violence in Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza come to an end. Mr. Arafat commands a so- called ``police force'' of over 40,000 well-armed soldiers, and it defies belief that if he were to truly be determined to put an end to the violence he would be incapable of doing so. Forty thousand well- armed men on that small territory are more than adequate to restore peace and stability in the region. Our resolution, Mr. Speaker, also calls on all the neighbors of the State of Israel and the international community to respect the freely expressed will of the people of Israel and to be prepared to engage in meaningful and constructive relations with the new government of Israel. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I have just concluded a lunch with our Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who is about to leave on a journey to the region. I know I speak for all of us in wishing him good luck in this difficult undertaking. It is critical that Israel's neighbors and the countries in the region as a whole display a degree of responsibility, statesmanship, and commitment to move ahead with the peace process. Clearly, given the current climate, there will be no final resolution of this long-festering conflict; but it is critical for the benefit of all the people in the region--Arabs, Palestinians and Israelis--that peace and stability be restored and the process of sitting down around the negotiating table with the new Government of Israel commence. We here in this body will do our utmost to facilitate this process. I wish the new Government of Israel, yet to be formed, good luck as it attempts to carve out for the people of Israel a permanent, stable and peaceful place in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.