Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

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

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to former Senator Alan Cranston of California who passed away over the holiday break. In a career spanning most of the 20th century, both as a private citizen and a Member of Congress, he developed a reputation as a tireless advocate of worthy causes from the environment to veterans health, and most notably arms control. His passing gives us pause to reflect on the legacy of one who fought hard his entire life for peace and democratic freedoms. Mr. Speaker, Alan Cranston began his crusade for peace early in his life as a journalist. Born in Palo Alto, California in 1914, Cranston graduated from Stanford University in 1936 and he worked for the International News Service where he edited the first unaltered version of Mein Kampf, laying bare Hitler's racist beliefs, and inviting a lawsuit from the Fuehrer over copyright infringement. In 1939, Cranston continued his fight against racism as an advocate for the Common Council for America Unity, an organization opposing discrimination against the foreign born. Cranston's service to his country began during World War II, when he enlisted in the United States Army and became a private. Because of his verbal skills, he was assigned to lecture to soldiers on war aims. After the war, Cranston continued to advocate peace through his career in journalism. Mr. Speaker, in 1968, he became a United States Senator from California. In the U.S. Senate, Alan Cranston's tireless advocacy for protecting the California desert and advocating the philosophy of arms control and arms reduction earned him the reputation of a ``workhorse,'' and it is one he rightly deserves. And even after leaving the Senate at the age of 82, Alan Cranston continued until the time of his death to press for arms reduction by chairing two San Francisco-based think tanks--the Gorbachev Foundation USA and the Global Security Institute. Mr. Speaker, Senator Alan Cranston worked long and hard for peace, and at his passing I join his many friends and admirers in paying tribute to his distinguished service, and it is my hope that we may carry on his work with equal strength and conviction.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, during the 106th Congress, over 60 Members of Congress joined me in support of comprehensive domestic child labor law reform which would protect our children in the workplace. This bipartisan legislation--entitled ``The Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act'' (H.R. 2119 in the 106th Congress)--would assist both families and teenagers' struggling with the competing interests of holding a job while gaining an education. The legislation will also reduce the incidence of injuries and deaths of minors at the workplace. I look forward to reintroducing this important bill early in the 107th Congress. As we continue our efforts to combat the injustice of international child labor, we must not forget our own children here. The exploitation of child labor is unfortunately not a thing of the past in our country. It has become a growing problem that continues to jeopardize the health, education, development and lives of many of our children. People often associate the evils of child labor only with Third World countries. But American teenagers are also negatively impacted by exploitation on the job. Our economy has changed considerably since the days when teenagers held after school jobs at a ``Mom and Pop'' corner drug store or soda fountain. In today's low unemployment economy, teenagers are hired to work part-time to fill-in or to hold jobs previously held by adults in full-time positions. Many high-school students are working 30 and even 40 hours a week, and often they are working well past midnight on school nights. Research shows that long hours on the job take away time needed for schoolwork and family responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, studies have shown that the majority of children and teenagers who hold jobs in the United States are not working to support their families, but rather are employed to earn extra spending money. Employment is important in teaching young people the value of work, and I see nothing wrong with minors working to earn extra spending money. I think it is a serious problem, however, when teenagers work more hours for spending money than they spend working for their education. It is important for children to learn the value of work, but a solid education, not after school jobs, are the key to a successful future. We need to set sensible limits on the hours that minors are permitted to work during the school year so that our children can focus on their primary job--earning a good education. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to an article which appeared in the New York Times recently entitled ``Problems Seen For Teenagers Who Hold Jobs'' which was written by Steven Greenhouse. The article discusses some of the problems many teenagers face when they hold a job during the school year. According to the article, a study of the National Academy of Sciences found that when teenagers work more than 20 hours a week, it often leads to lower grades, higher alcohol use and too little time with parents and families. Mr. Speaker, I will place the entire text of this article in the Record, but I would like to call special attention to a couple of paragraphs that are particularly indicative of the problems we face: ``One recent Friday, Alicia, [a] waitress, a senior at Governor Livingston Regional High School in Berkeley Heights, N.J., acknowledged that she had put in a grueling week. Alicia, who works at Johnny Rockets, a 1950's-style diner at the Short Hills Mall, had missed one day of school that week and arrived late the four other days. The reason was that she had to work past midnight on Tuesday and Thursday, and that came after working from 10:30 a.m. until 12:30 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday. ``It's fun, and I get a lot of money--I made $240 on Saturday alone,'' she said, noting that she sometimes earns $40 in tips in an hour when its busy. `` `I'm not doing good in school this semester,' Alicia acknowledged, her tone half rueful, half isn't-this-cool. `Because of work, I come into school late or I stay home because I'm so tired.' ``Joan Tonto, one of Alicia's teachers, said, `She's tired when she comes into school, and by sixth period she's too tired to work on problems in class. I've talked to Alicia about how her job is affecting her in school, and she says, `I'm making a lot of money, Mrs. Tonto.' '' Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me from reading these excerpts and from reviewing a recent study by the National Academy of Sciences, that it is time for us to carefully weigh the benefits of children working against the costs that too much work can take on a child's academic performance and healthy development. At what point does the desire to earn extra spending money negatively effect the ability of a child to perform to her or his learning potential at school? According to Steven Greenhouse, 16- and 17-year-olds are working 40 hours a week on top of 30 hours in the classroom and in many cases education is taking a back seat to after school employment. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the entire article ``Problems Seen For Teenagers Who Hold Jobs'' be placed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to read this article and to join me in cosponsoring ``The Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act.'' This legislation will ensure that the job opportunities available to our youth are meaningful, safe, and healthy, and our bill will encourage--not discourage--their healthy development and will give them the tools to help prepare them for a productive adult life. [From the New York Times, Jan. 29, 2001] Problems Seen for Teenagers Who Hold Jobs (By Steven Greenhouse) Some weekdays, Alicia Gunther, 17, works past midnight as a waitress at a New Jersey mall, and she readily admits that her work often hurts her grades and causes her to sleep through first period. Jason Ferry, a high school junior, loves working 30 hours a week as a cashier at a Connecticut supermarket, but he acknowledges that when he gets home from work at 9:30 p.m. he usually does not have enough time to study for big tests. For decades, the conventional wisdom has been that it is great for teenagers like these to hold after-school jobs because they teach responsibility, provide pocket money and keep the teenagers out of trouble. But in a nation where more than five million teenagers under 18 work, a growing body of research is challenging the conventional wisdom and concluding that working long hours often undermines teenagers' education and overall development. In the most important study, two arms of the National Academy of Sciences--the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine--found that when teenagers work more than 20 hours a week, the work often leads to lower grades, higher alcohol use and too little time with their parents and families. Influenced by such studies, lawmakers in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Alabama and other states have pushed in recent years to tighten laws regulating how many hours teenagers can work and how late they can work. In Massachusetts, several lawmakers are seeking to limit the maximum amount of time 16- year-olds and 17-year-olds can work during school weeks to 30 hours, down from the current maximum of 48 hours. In 1998, Connecticut lawmakers reduced the maximum number of hours 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds can work during school weeks to 32 hours, down from 48, and last year they debated imposing fines on employers who violate those limits. In New York, students that age are allowed to work up to 28 hours during school weeks, while in New Jersey the maximum is 40 hours. The impetus to tighten restrictions grows largely out of concerns about education, especially fears that American students are falling short on tougher standards and are lagging behind foreign students in comparative tests. While there are myriad reasons for poor school performance, legislators seeking tougher restrictions say American students would certainly do better if they placed more emphasis on work inside school and less emphasis on working outside school. ``We have 16- and 17-year-olds working 40 hours a week on top of 30 hours in the classroom,'' said Peter J. Larkin, the Massachusetts state representative sponsoring the bill to reduce the number of hours teenagers can work. ``Something has to give, and academics seems to be taking a back seat. Sure there is pressure against the bill from employers who need teenage workers to help in a full-employment economy, but many other employers are complaining that the graduates of our high schools are not up to par.'' With the national jobless rate at 4 percent, near its lowest point in three decades, many employers are eager to hire teenagers and say it would be bad for the economy and for their businesses to limit the number of hours teenagers can work. In many states, those pushing for tougher restrictions include pediatricians' groups, P.T.A.'s, women's clubs, teachers' unions and the National Consumer League. Those opposing tighter restrictions usually include business groups and the many parents who see benefits in teenagers' working, and who have warm memories of their own first jobs as soda jerks or supermarket clerks. Studies by the National Research Council and professors at Stanford University, Temple University and the University of Minnesota found negative effects when 16- and 17-year-olds work more than 20 hours a week. These studies concluded that students who work long hours often do not have enough time or energy for homework and miss out on social and intellectual development gained from participating in school clubs and athletic teams. Several studies also found that 16-year-olds and 17-year- olds who work long hours tend to use alcohol more than others in their age group, largely because they have extra pocket money and copy older co-workers. ``It's probably safe for kids to work 10 hours or less each week when they're in school, but probably not such a good idea for them to work more than 20 hours,'' said Laurence Steinberg, a professor of psychology at Temple University. ``That's when we and other researchers find decreased academic performance and decreased engagement in school.'' But many child development experts, teachers and parents said working a modest amount could be valuable for teenagers, teaching responsibility and how to work with others, as well as contributing money to financially strapped households. ``It's a positive thing,'' said Ted Simonelli, a guidance counselor at Linden High School in New Jersey. ``They're learning to be on time, they're learning to be good employees, they're learning a skill that they can trade on when they graduate. Many of the students in the top half of our class work after school.'' For teenagers in poor city neighborhoods, several studies have found, a job can be especially beneficial because it fosters discipline and provides needed role models. Supporters of teenage work point to success stories like Josh Hershey, 16, of West Hartford, Conn., who took a job at an after-school child care center because it would help prepare him for the career to which he aspires: teaching. His job helped his schoolwork, he said, because it forced him to procrastinate less and focus more when doing homework. ``There are a lot of benefits to students' working in moderation,'' said Jeylan T. Mortimer, a sociology professor at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. ``But most sociologists and psychologists would say that it's an excessive load for full-time students to work 25 or 30 hours a week if you think it's important for young people to participate in extracurricular activities, develop friendships and spend time with their families.'' A newly released study by the Department of Labor shows that 58 percent of American 16-year-olds hold jobs sometime during the school year, not including informal work like baby-sitting, while another study shows that one-third of high-school juniors work 20 or more hours each week. The Department of Labor also found that slightly more than two- fifths of 15-year-olds work, as do one in five 14-year-olds. Several economists said the percentage of teenagers who work has remained at the same level in recent years. Although the statistics are sketchy, these experts said they believed that the number of hours students work has increased, partly because of the tight labor market. A new study by the International Labor Organization showed that American teenagers work far more than teenagers in most other countries. The study found that 53 percent of American teenagers, from the ages of 16 to 19, work in any given week. In Japan, 18 percent of teenagers aged 15 through 19 work, while in Germany, 30.8 percent of teenagers in that age bracket work. One recent Friday, Alicia, the waitress, a senior at Governor Livingston Regional High School in Berkeley Heights, N.J., acknowledged that she had put in a grueling week. Alicia, who works at Johnny Rockets, a 1950's-style diner at the Short Hills Mall, had missed one day of school that week and arrived late the four other days. The reason was that she had to work past midnight on Tuesday and Thursday, and that came after working from 10:30 a.m. until 12:30 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday. ``It's fun, and I get a lot of money--I made $240 on Saturday alone,'' she said, noting that she sometimes earns $40 in tips in an hour when it is busy. ``I'm not doing good in school this semester,'' Alicia acknowledged, her tone half rueful, half isn't-this-cool. ``Because of work, I come into school late or I stay home because I'm so tired.'' Joan Tonto, one of Alicia's teachers, said, ``She's tired when she comes into school, and by sixth period she's too tired to work on problems in class. I've talked to Alicia about how her job is affecting her in school, and she says, `I'm making a lot of money, Mrs. Tonto.' '' Teenage labor dates from colonial times, when many youths served as apprentices or helped sow and harvest. But with the nation's rapid industrialization came heightened concerns about teenage labor because of the increased emphasis on education and the many exposes about businesses exploiting children. Still, many parents urge their children to work, saying it is better than sitting around watching television. Laura Stifel, whose son Jason Ferry has the 30-hour-a-week supermarket job in Southington, Conn., saw a benefit to teenagers' working. ``I think it's great that kids work because it leaves them with less time to get in trouble or be out on the street,'' she said. But when she began to worry that Jason's $7.75-an-hour job was taking a toll on his grades, Ms. Stifel barred him from using his car until he got his grades back up. In the summer of 1999, a 16-year-old Southington High School student working at an amusement park died when he stepped too close to the amusement ride he was tending and was dragged underneath. About 70 teenagers die each year in work-related accidents, and safety experts say these accidents occur because teenage workers often receive little training or supervision. Federal regulations bar 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds from working in most jobs, with one exception being delivering newspapers. Federal rules prohibit 14- and 15-year-olds from working more than three hours or past 7 p.m. on school days. The federal government places no restrictions on the hours 16- and 17-year-olds can work, leaving the matter to the states. Jeffrey Ellenberg, who owns a dry-cleaning shop in West Hartford, likes hiring teenagers. ``We used to have quite a few more high school students working,'' he said. ``Unfortunately, in this economy we can't get more of them. The advantage is you can train them to do what full-timers do, but you don't have to pay them the full- time wages and benefits.'' At Mr. Ellenberg's shop, Rebecca Gohsler, 16, works two or three afternoons a week behind the counter and 10 hours on Saturdays. Although Rebecca's guidance counselor frets that Rebecca's job is pulling down her grades and pulling her away from extracurricular activities, Rebecca sees her $8-an-hour job as one of the best things in her life. She likes the spending money, likes chatting with customers and likes the sense of independence. Rebecca, who hopes to become a marine biologist, said her job sometimes undercut her schoolwork. ``If I just came home from work and I have a paper to write, there is a chance I might not spend as much time on it or put in enough effort,'' she said. Many educators say parents should crack down on their teenagers' jobs if grades start to languish. Carol Hawkins did just that last spring, ordering her son Jon, 16, a junior at Governor Livingston High, to cut back his 20 hours a week pumping gas when his grades started to suffer. ``This year I've been able to manage my work and my school better,'' Jon said. ``But sometimes I still have to study until 2 in the morning.'' Several studies have found that 20 percent to 30 percent of teenage workers contribute to family expenses. Most use their earnings for cars, gasoline, clothes, cosmetics, cell phones, pagers and movies. Dawne Naples, a guidance counselor at Southington High, said she advised Jason Ferry, when his grades were suffering, that it was unwise to work 30 hours a week, largely to pay for his car and gasoline. `` `The car will get you around town,' I told him, `but what's going to get you beyond Southington High?' '' she said.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, finding a peaceful solution to the problems in the Middle East has long been an important concern of the United States. Attempts to reach a resolution of these difficulties, unfortunately have thus far failed. While workable solutions have been found in short supply, a number of extremely helpful insights have been put forward. In this regard, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to a particularly insightful article by David A. Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee. Although it was written before the inauguration of the new American President and prior to the latest of peace negotiations ending in a stalemate, the insights that Mr. Harris provides are still timely and important. Mr. Speaker, I commend David Harris' thoughts to my colleagues and urge them to give his article careful attention. As Israel Makes Fateful Political and Security Choices, Its Friends Abroad Also Are Confronting Hard Truths (By David A. Harris, Executive Director, The American Jewish Committee, Jan. 4, 2001) In recent months, like many friends of Israel, I've had my share of sleepless nights. With only a few brief moments of either hope or respite, the news has been unremittingly disturbing and depressing. Israel is once again under siege. Every corner of Israel, every Israeli is a potential target. There is no distinction between soldier and civilian, between adult and youth, between dove and hawk, between believer and atheist, or between those living within and those living beyond the Green Line. It may not be all-out war as we saw in 1967 or 1973, but it is a calculated Palestinian strategy to obtain through violence what they have heretofore failed to achieve by negotiation. Some Israelis and their friends abroad react to this volatile situation by beating their breasts and asking yet again what more Israel might do to meet demands of the Palestinians. Others, at the opposite end of the political spectrum, conclude that not only is the pursuit of peace a dangerous dream but, even more, a risk to the very existence of the state. Decisions on War and Peace As I see it, Israel has no clear option, no obvious way to turn, and its predicament is further exacerbated by its complex and polarized domestic situation. In saying this, I do not wish to second-guess the Israeli government and people. I have always taken the view that it is for them, first and foremost, to make the fateful decisions about war and peace and the steps that can lead in either direction. And the sheer survival of Israel over 52 years, not to mention its remarkable growth and development, adequately attests to its uncanny ability to overcome the odds, confound the skeptics, and disprove the doomsayers. Even as I openly worry about the future, then, I am inspired and reassured by Israelis' determination to go on, to fight when necessary, to negotiate for peace whenever possible. Today we are confronted with a situation that few, especially in the West, might have predicted. A dovish Israeli government--prepared to cross its own red lines, especially regarding the future status of Jerusalem, in the pursuit of an historic peace agreement with the Palestinians--is faced with violence in the streets, calls for jihad, and terrorist attacks in the heart of the country, while the Arab world lines up foursquare behind the Palestinians and seeks to isolate Israel by depicting it as the trigger-happy-aggressor, the Nazi reincarnation. Thus, instead of grasping Israel's outstretched hand and seeking to resolve outstanding issues, however challenging, at the bargaining table, the Palestinians perceived instead a weakened Israel. If proof was needed, it came for them in the unilateral decision to withdraw from Southern Lebanon after Israeli mothers led a campaign to bring their sons home before more were killed at the hands of Hizbullah; in Prime Minister Barak's determination to make peace before the end of the Clinton presidency, which was, in the final analysis, an artificial deadline; and in Israel's perceived vulnerability to the sting of international censure, given Barak's efforts to undo the global public relations impact of the Netanyahu years. In effect, Arafat, though the weaker party by far, has skillfully leveraged his position, emerging stronger than might have been imagined. He has, for example, already managed to prove once again that violence does pay--the current deal being brokered by the White House and given tentative approval by Barak appears to go beyond the package on the table at Camp David in July. If so, why should Arafat, from his point of view, stop here? Violence and Negotiations Eager to see his long-sought Palestinian state emerge from the ``honor and blood'' of the martyred, ever mindful of the most radical elements among the Palestinians, and determined not to demand less than Anwar Sadat, King Hussein, or Hafaz el-Assad in insisting on Israeli compliance with all his territorial demands. Arafat continues his complete juggling act of encouraging violence and talking peace at one and the same time. At the very least, we can expect from Arafat more of the same brinksmanship through the last days of the Clinton Administration, though we don't know what, if anything, will come of it. Knowing how eager the American leader is to leave the political scene with substantial progress to show in the Middle East given his extraordinary investment of time, energy, and the prestige of the presidency, and aware of how committed the Israeli leader has been to making this possible on Clinton's watch, Arafat will squeeze the moment for all it's worth, and then some, Not quite, some observers will note. Arafat doesn't hold all the cards. After all, there's an Israeli election around the corner and, without a peace deal, the conventional wisdom is that Barak will fall and Arafat will then have to face his old nemesis, Ariel Sharon, who will make the Palestinian leader's life a lot more difficult. Maybe, but then again, maybe not. We in the West make a living out of failing to understand the Middle East. We're so busy superimposing our own deeply ingrained ways of thinking on the region--based in large measure on our rationalism, pragmatism, willingness to compromise, and tendency to mirror-image (``surely they're like us and want the very same things in life as we do'')-- that we too often end up surprised and puzzled when things don't go as we might expect. We don't speak Arabic; we have little contact with Arab culture; we have minimal understanding of the nature of Islam and its pervasive role in the life of the Arab world; we spend too little time reading the writings of Judith Miller, Bernard Lewis, Fouad Ajami, and other knowledgeable observers of the region; and we embrace too quickly as representative those selected Arab voices that sound reassuring to us. Yet none of this stops us from thinking we know enough about the region to offer grounded views on diplomacy and strategy. Indeed, the U.S. Government, with its far greater resources and expertise, has stumbled more than once, with fatal consequences, trying to make its way across the Middle East minefields. Isn't it just possible that the prospect of a Prime Minister Sharon not only doesn't frighten Arafat but actually appeals to him? Taking a page from Leon Trotsky--the worse it gets, the better it becomes--Arafat may, in fact, perceive advantages in such an outcome: with Sharon demonized in the international news media and sharply criticized in world capitals, Israel could face new international pressures, including renewed calls for UN intervention and increased sympathy for a unilateral declaration of independence. Tests for Barak and Sharon And this brings us back to Israel's domestic predicament. Barak, the pollsters say, needs a peace deal before February 6 if he is to have a chance at winning the election. Without it, he is saddled with negative images--accusations of political ineptness, willingness to yield to the demands of religious parties despite his calls to marginalize them, and inexperience and imprudence in dealing with the Palestinians. Thus, no matter what he says between now and February 6, no matter how tough his language may be at times, the prevailing assumption is that he needs Arafat to bail him out and both men know it. On the other hand, Sharon is a known quantity who is a deeply polarizing figure in Israel. He is seen as representing a return to the Shamir years of a ``fortress Israel'' in eternal conflict with the enemies of the Jewish people. That will not sit well, not for long, I suspect, with many Israelis living in a prospering first-world country that longs for regional stability and even a chilly peace with its neighbors, so that it can finally one day turn to the future and away from the endless cycles of violence of the past. After all, if the Israeli left was revealed to be the victim of its own illusions about creating a new Middle East, the Israeli right, illustrated by Sharon, has been the victim of its own illusions about the possibility of maintaining an indefinite status quo of occupation. If Barak is found wanting by the Israeli electorate in his ability to provide answers and solutions, then it's equally likely Sharon, if elected prime minister, will face the same prospect within short order, unless he is able to turn in entirely new policy directions. Of course, whoever is elected, Barak or Sharon, will face the very same unruly and fractionated Knesset, which further clouds the outlook for stable governance. This is precisely what Benjamin Netanyahu is counting on. Although polls showed him leading both Barak and Sharon, he chose not to run this time around unless the Knesset dissolved itself and also stood for new elections. It was a statesmanlike position, praised by many, including some who do not normally count themselves among Netanyahu's most fervent admirers; it was also a position calculated to elevate his standing in the expectation that whoever is elected in February will not be able to lead for long before yet another round of voting, including parliamentary elections, is needed. At that time, Netanyahu, seeking to cast himself as the true centrist, would almost surely step into the political fray. Overriding Political and Strategic Factors In the meantime, as Israeli politics seeks to sort itself against the backdrop of the deep and seemingly irreconcilable fissures in Israeli society, certain things seem clear and best not be forgotten. First, many of the claims of the Israeli right, especially since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, have proved accurate, though they were largely ignored by those on the left who reflexively dismissed anything said by spokesmen on the right. For example, incitement to hatred among Palestinians has continued unabated and with devastating consequences. Moreover, the accumulation of weapons and the build-up of the Palestinian police and militia, in direct contravention of the Oslo Accords, have created a deadly adversary for Israel. And the wink and nod to Palestinian extremists--many arrested with great fanfare only to be released as soon as no one was paying attention--has undermined the chances for a peaceful settlement with Israel. Second, many of the claims of the Israeli left have also proved strikingly accurate, despite attempts by those on the right to dismiss them. Palestinians who not docilely remain under Israeli occupation forever. Neither could Israel expect occupation to continue without some corrosive effects on its democratic values, nor could it absorb the Palestinians in the territories without undoing the Jewish character of the state. And sooner or later, Jewish settlers in remote outposts in Gaza, for example, would become flashpoints for violence between Israelis and Palestinians. Third, as a consequence, no one school of thought has a monopoly of wisdom on what is best for Israel. Ideologues, whether of the left or right, become prisoners of their own preset views, and, as a result, tend to adjust the facts to their doctrinal thinking rather than the other way around. Fourth, regardless of what happens in the short run respecting Israeli-Palestinian issues, the sad reality is that Israel will continue to face severe challenges in the region, requiring a powerful military, eternal vigilance, and close coordination with the United States. Iran and Iraq pose dangerous, and growing, threats, particularly in the nonconventional field. Islamic extremist groups operating in the region will not soon go away. Syria possesses missiles and chemical warheads. Disturbingly, Egypt has embarked on a broad modernization program of its conventional forces and is known to be engaged in research on some nonconventional weapons systems as well. An emerging Palestinian state will alter the political and security landscape for Jordan, with unknown consequences. Pressures on the Arab World And, of course, the larger problems of the need for a true reformation in the Arab world, of the glaring absence of democracy and the rule of law, of governmental lack of accountability to its citizens, of endemic corruption and nepotism, of high birth rates and insufficient jobs, of economic stagnation and fear of opening to the world, of the Islamists influence on society, all continue to plague this vast and important region of the world. A few pertinent statistics illustrate the dimensions of the problems faced by the Arab world. Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University has pointed out, for example, that Finland, with a population of 5 million, exports more manufactured goods than the entire Arab world combined, with its 22 countries and its population well over 200 million. Israel has a higher per capita GNP than its five contiguous neighbors--Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, and Egypt--combined, and more Internet users by far than all five put together. And impoverished Gaza has a higher birthrate by a multiple of nine than prosperous Bologna, Italy. Fifth, we should be under little illusion about such notions as a ``demilitarized Palestinian state'' or ``an end to the conflict.'' A Palestinian state is coming, one way or another, and the debate about whether it is good or bad for Israel seems largely irrelevant. It will happen, and Israel no doubt will do its utmost to establish harmonious ties, but it must also recognize, as a recent CIA report looking ahead to the year 2015 predicted, that ``chilly'' relations are likely to prevail and surveillance and monitoring will be required. That Palestinian state will not be demilitarized, I believe, regardless of agreements signed, which could pose a threat both to Israel and Jordan. And there will remain those Palestinians who will seek to continue the struggle with Israel, either because they see Israel proper as their real home, or because they see the Zionists as ``infidels'' and ``modern-day Crusaders'' who have no right to be there, or both. Sixth, we need to take very seriously anti-Semitism emanating from the Arab world. Not only is it pernicious and contrary to the promotion of peaceful relations in the region, but it also fuels anti-Semitic attacks against Jews and Jewish targets throughout the world, as we have tragically seen in recent months. And finally, we need to remind ourselves of the importance of our own role in making a difference on Israel's behalf. Both in our public education and advocacy efforts in the United States, in which we stress the mutual benefits of close U.S.-Israel ties as well as America's vital national interest in Israel's security in a stable Middle East, and in our diplomatic, exchange and public affairs programs around the world, the American Jewish Committee is making a unique contribution to Israel's well-being and its quest for peace and security. The political and security challenges that lie ahead for Israel will doubtless only heighten the importance of that work.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for H. Con. Res. 14, to authorize the use of the Rotunda of the United States Capitol for the national civic commemoration of the Days of Remembrance of the Holocaust later this year. I want to express my thanks to the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, Mr. Ney of Ohio, for his leadership in this matter, and I also want to thank my dear friend and distinguished colleague Mr. Hoyer of Maryland, the ranking Democratic member of the Committee. Mr. Speaker, as the only survivor of the Holocaust ever elected to the Congress of the United States, this resolution has special meaning for me. Remembering the Holocaust on this day provides us the opportunity to pay tribute to the vast numbers of innocent men, women and children who were murdered en masse by the Nazi war machine and its Fascist allies. It also reminds us of man's mindless inhumanity towards man. In the traumatic, final days of the Second World War, when the full horror of Hitler's ``Final Solution'' was brought to light, the international community said ``never again.'' Looking back over the past fifty years since the Holocaust, this hope has, unfortunately, not been realized. Time and time again whole populations have been extinguished in southeast Asia, central Africa, southeast Europe and elsewhere as religious, ethnic and racial hatred ran amok. Innocent men, women, and children have been targeted for destruction for the sole reason that they were of a different religious, ethnic or racial community. Mr. Speaker, this annual observance of the ``Days of Remembrance'' is a much-needed reminder of the nightmare of the Holocaust and the massacre of 6 million innocent people by a brutal and barbaric regime. It also reminds us that hate persists in today's world, that hate crimes are prosecuted each and every day, and that we must do all in our power to prevent hate crimes from leading to future holocausts. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 15 which expresses the sympathy and support of the American people and the U.S. Congress to the victims of the devastating earthquake in western India. On Friday, January 26, the Indian State of Gujarat was struck by a massive quake which was felt across the subcontinent from Pakistan to Nepal and Bangladesh. For Gujarat, the calamity was overwhelming-- thousands have lost their lives and countless others have been rendered homeless and destitute. The Government of India has been coping heroically in the face of such widespread destruction. The Indian Armed Forces have been the backbone of this response, joined by thousands of ordinary people who have put aside their own personal loss to help save lives and provide assistance to others. The aftershocks of the quake can be felt around the world and in our own country as thousands of Indian-Americans face the loss of loved ones. I want to commend the Bush administration and the U.S. Agency for International Development for immediately responding to the emergency by providing $5 million in humanitarian assistance and dispatching a plane load of supplies and relief experts to the region. I also want to commend the American people, particularly the Indian- American community for their tremendous outpouring of concern and offers of assistance to the victims of the disaster. As we have seen time and again, during the recent earthquake in El Salvador and other foreign disasters, the generosity and caring of the American people knows no boundaries. The world community has also recognized the enormity of this disaster and aid has been flooding in from all corners. But I am afraid that even this generous response will be inadequate in the face of such overwhelming destruction. This resolution pledges the support of the U.S. Congress to provide additional assistance to the Indian Government and the people of Gujarat as they try to rebuild their lives and their country. In light of the very special relationship between the United States and India, I think it is important that we send this message of solidarity and hope to the people of India. There will be dark days ahead for the people of India as they dig out from beneath the rubble, cremate the dead and try to piece together their lives and livelihoods. But they can take comfort from the fact that they are not alone in facing this challenge. America and the world will stand by India in its hour of need. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today Ukraine took a historic step--closing the Chernobyl nuclear reactor for all time. I welcome this critical step, writing a final chapter to one of mankind's most ominous events. The explosion of the flawed, Soviet-designed nuclear power station in 1986 was a dramatic warning to all of us of the frightening potential for disaster in this nuclear age. It served to underline the cold reality that precise design, continuous careful maintenance and a dedication to safety are essential if we are to avoid nuclear catastrophe. Ukraine's President, Leonid Kuchma, incurred a substantial political risk with his own people when he negotiated with the European Union and the United States to close the station in exchange for financial pledges to assist in completing two modern nuclear power plants designed to Western standards to replace the lost power production. Even in its damaged condition, Chernobyl is believed to provide approximately 5% of Ukraine's total power production. One of Chernobyl's four graphite reactors was undamaged and has continued to produce power for Ukraine's consumers. Mr. Speaker, not only is the Chernobyl power source lost--it will be at least a year before either of the two new reactors now under construction comes on line. In the meantime, 16,000 jobs at the Chernobyl station will be lost, although a few hundred workers will remain in order to deal with the high-risk construction of a permanent housing for the damaged, highly radioactive unit. The new city of Slavutich, built with considerable U.S. assistance to provide safe housing for Chernobyl's work force, will be heavily impacted by the shutdown. In Ukraine there has been criticism of President Kuchma for ``knuckling under to the West'' and for the hardships the Ukraine people will have to shoulder as the energy supply is reduced and jobs are lost. The obvious benefit to Ukraine and all of mankind by placing their very dangerous reactor in ``deep-freeze'' seems abstract and distant to the Ukrainian people. Mr. Speaker, today's decision to close Chernobyl is but the latest courageous action by the government of Ukraine in facing up to the nuclear dangers to civilization. Rarely acknowledged publicly, the newly independent Ukraine joined with the United States and Russia in a dramatic partnership to reduce the danger and threat of nuclear warheads to all of us. Ukraine, in cooperation with the United States, has completely rid its soil of the nuclear warhead inventory from Soviet days--decommissioning weapons on its soil and shipping them to Russia to joint U.S.-Russian controlled facilities for destruction under strict controls. Mr. Speaker, the world today is safer from nuclear accidents because of Ukraine's leadership, cooperation and sacrifices. I invite my colleagues to join me in saluting President Kuchma for this latest important step.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues in the Congress to join me in paying tribute to Ambassador Dennis B. Ross, who has served both Democratic and Republican Presidents and Secretaries of State as the Special Middle East Coordinator at the Department of State. Over the past decade, Dennis has done more than anyone else in the effort to bring peace and stability to that troubled region of the world. A short while ago, Dennis made public his intention to work through the end of this current Administration, but he also made clear that he does not intend to work in the next administration. The reasons for his departure are quite understandable--he wants to spend more time with his wife and three children. Considering the time that he has devoted to shuttling between the United States and the Middle East--many times at very short notice and under extremely difficult circumstances--he deserves the opportunity for more time with his family. Dennis Ross will be sorely missed as we seek to bring an end to the violence, hostility and instability that have plagued the Middle East for so long. He has played a critical role in dealing with that troubled part of the world for over the past decade. He knows all of the key players, he has worked with them, he understands their political constraints, and he has an intimate grasp of their ideological points of view. A native of California, Dennis Ross did undergraduate and graduate studies at the University of California at Los Angeles, where his doctoral thesis focused on Soviet decision-making. He began his career in Washington in the early 1980s working at the Department of Defense and the Department of State. From 1986 to 1988 he held the Middle East portfolio at the National Security Council staff at the White House. At the beginning of the George Bush Administration, Dennis became Director of the Policy Planning Staff of the Department of State with the rank of Ambassador. He worked closely and directly with James A. Baker on a broad range of U.S. foreign policy issues, but he played a particularly critical role in bringing about the Madrid Conference of 1991 which began the peace process negotiations that led to the Oslo accord of 1993. When the Clinton administration took office in early 1993, Dennis remained at the Department of State as Special Middle East Coordinator. He continued his efforts to further the peace process, working actively and directly with Secretary Warren Christopher and Secretary Madeleine Albright. Mr. Speaker, Dennis Ross has been an outstanding and a devoted public servant--he has spent incredible time and energy in furthering the foreign policies of the United States. His service to our nation is the epitome of bipartisanship in foreign policy. I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Dennis Ross for his committed service to our nation and in wishing him success in his future endeavors.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me today in congratulating and honoring Jack Valenti, the President of the Motion Picture Association of America, on his receipt of the first Citizen Patriot Award. This award recognizes outstanding contributions by civilians to our nation's military personnel and to our nation's security. My dear friend, Jack Valenti, is a friend to many of us here in this body, and he is most deserving of this singular honor. Jack first served our country during World War II, flying over 50 combat missions over Italy. Later, he served in a position of great responsibility in the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson. He then went on to represent our nation's film industry here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, I could spend all day extolling the virtues of this outstanding man, this extraordinary citizen and patriot. However, my efficient nature suggests that I share with you the excellent remarks of Secretary of Defense William Cohen when he presented Jack with this award. I request that excerpts of Secretary Cohen's speech be placed in the Record. Remarks of Secretary of Defense William Cohen Presenting the Civilian Patriot Award to Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association of America I had a long speech tonight, but that's not what I'm going to inflict upon you. You had an opportunity to pay tribute to a young sailor who survived the U.S.S. Cole tragedy. I don't know if many of you are aware of what took place following that terrorist bombing. But for 48 to 72 hours following that tragic event, these young men and women aboard that ship worked much of the time without any power. They were in total darkness. They had no external support. They had lost 17 of their colleagues. Fifty were desperately wounded. They had chaos all around--smoke, jagged metal. Then they lost the power and the water was coming in at 10 gallons per minute, and they had to bail it out bucket by bucket. But they were determined to save that ship to make sure that ship did not go down. So I again want to tell you how proud I am [of our forces], and how proud I am of President Clinton for having reached across the aisle to say, ``I want this Republican to serve in my administration to send a signal to the American people and to the Congress that when it comes to national security there is no party label. There is no party difference. We have one national security commitment.'' And I thank him for giving me this opportunity to be the civilian representative of the greatest military in the world, bar none. They are the finest military that we have ever had. They have performed magnificently the world over. Janet and I had the opportunity to visit General Tilelli in Korea up on the DMZ in the frozen hills. We've been out in the Persian Gulf where the temperatures ranged from 120 up to 140 degrees. We have been all over the world where our men and women serve us. And I must tell you--there can be no higher honor for me and Janet than to be working on their behalf. It takes a great tragedy like the U.S.S. Cole to remind the American people that our men and women in uniform are serving us. Because of them, you and I are able to sleep safely. We go home tonight and we sleep under that blanket of freedom because of what they do day in and day out, because of the dangers they face day in and day out, because of the lives they put on the line day in and day out. They are great warriors. They are also great musicians, as you've seen. They are great peacekeepers. They are diplomats. But most of all, they're our sons and our daughters, and we must do everything in our power to make sure that we give them everything that they need and deserve in order to continue to serve us in the fashion that they do. That has been our commitment. That will be, hopefully, the commitment of those who will follow. The film industry plays a critical role. On the way in, a number of the television reporters were asking us, ``Why are you doing this? Why are you here in Hollywood?'' Well, Hollywood has played a role in the security of this country throughout our history. If you go back to World War I, it was the movie star celebrities who were helping to push those Liberty Bonds. If you look at World War II, many of the celebrities were raising over $1 billion to support that war effort. And then there are the film clips that we have seen here tonight--``Saving Private Ryan'' by Steven Spielberg; ``U-571,'' ``The Perfect Storm,'' [and] ``Top Gun'' that Jerry Bruckheimer produced earlier. And we are going to witness another movie produced by Jerry with Michael Day, ``Pearl Harbor,'' coming out on Memorial Day. And, of course, there's another great tribute to our military by Cuba Gooding, Jr. in ``Men of Honor.'' The film industry is important in shaping what people think about our military and supporting them, and we wanted to be here to say something to Hollywood you don't hear very often, and that's ``Thank you.'' Thank you for all that you do in portraying the men and women who serve us, their patriotism, their courage, their sense of honor. On behalf of all of us, we in the Pentagon want to say thank you to Hollywood. Tonight, we're going to present the first Citizen Patriot Award. And again, I was asked on the way in, ``Why Valenti?'' Of course, you have to say, well, why not Valenti? . . . . We are celebrating a patriot in Jack Valenti. He is a veteran who flew 50 combat missions over Italy in World War II, who went on to public service in the White House with President Johnson, who has continued his service to this film industry but also to this country. And you know that he's a man of great language and literature and passion and commitment. He has been a strong advocate on behalf of the men and women who are serving us in the military. So if we're looking for a citizen patriot, at the very top of the list we take Jack Valenti for all that he represents. I will tell you that patriotism is in his blood. I remember reading a book that he wrote some years ago, and I came across a passage. He said, ``I remember my white-mustached grandfather, Sicilian, proud, and dignified, and dominant, speaking to me and his dozen grandchildren in heavy accents, thick with an odd mix of Sicily and the Texas gulf coast, and he said, ``Love this country, be proud of this country. It's a good land.'' Jack Valenti has lived up to the words of his grandfather. He is proud of this country. He is a proud patriot. And I can't think of a better summation than one I read from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who also was a warrior, during the Civil War. Holmes said that, ``Through our great and good fortune, in our youth our hearts were touched with fire. And it was given to us to learn at the outset that life is a profound and passionate thing. And while we're permitted to scorn nothing but indifference and don't pretend to undervalue the worldly rewards of ambition, we have seen with our own eyes beyond and above the gold fields, those snowy heights of honor. It's for us to bear the reports of those who follow. But above all, we have learned that whether a man accepts from Fortune her spade and will look downward and dig, or from Aspiration her axe and cord and will scale the ice, the one and only success which is his to command is to bring to his work a mighty heart.'' For more than half a century, Jack Valenti has brought to his work a mighty heart, and we are eternally grateful for that.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the life and contributions of Grace McCarthy, who passed away just a few days ago at the age of 92. One of Pacifica, California's most passionate and influential citizens, Grace McCarthy added value and beauty to almost every aspect of civic life in Pacifica and in San Mateo County. Her countless contributions were not made simply from her strong sense of public duty, but from the affection and loyalty she had for the city and citizens of Pacifica. Mr. Speaker, the phrases ``ecologically sound'' and ``environmental protection'' were not as popular thirty years ago as they are today, but Grace did a great deal to give them meaning in Pacifica. Never bending simply because some opinion leaders may have disagreed with her, Grace was a maverick whose steadfast views and boundless energy were key to protecting Pacifica's natural splendor beginning in the 1970's. Nothing demonstrates this more than Grace McCarthy's appointment to the first Coastal Conservation Commission for Pacifica and to the California State Coastal Commission. During her tenure, Grace fought unpopular battles and was often at odds with fellow commission members, but her views always earned respect because of her unquestioning devotion to protecting and preserving the coast in and around Pacifica. The Pacifica Tribune commented, ``As a member of the Central Coastal Conservation Commission, she catches it from both sides. Free enterprise businessmen and property owners figure she's aligned with those who would `close' the coast. The environmentalists accuse her of being aligned with the free enterprise business and property owners . . . Fortunately, Mrs. McCarthy is a practical, tough not easily intimidated or discouraged public servant who's doing a hard job well.'' Mr. Speaker, Grace's inherent respect for natural beauty existed before she came to reside permanently in Pacifica with her husband and children. Grace and her husband, Carl, met at Yosemite National Park, where, fortuitously, Carl paid a chance visit and Grace was attending a nature convention. Grace and Carl's mutual love for nature augmented Grace's devotion to Pacifica's coast and its evergreens. Decades before environmental issues were in vogue, Grace McCarthy devotedly and doggedly fought for wilderness parks, open space, riding and hiking trails, and the dedication of parks in new subdivisions. Although she was a fierce, determined and indomitable conservationist, in her public activities and in her private life, she was the epitome of her name--Grace. Mr. Speaker, all of us who honor Grace McCarthy will look to Pacifica's treetops and coastline and know that much of what we cherish there is ours to enjoy because of Grace's energy, foresight, fierce determination and firm conviction. We will miss her in the fights that lie ahead, but her spirit will continue to inspire and guide our actions.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues an article by Thomas Hine which appeared in the November 26, 2000 issue of The Washington Post. The article, ``Working at 14--and Paying For It,'' deals with teenagers who work too many hours during school, and, according to the author, this can result in a higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse and in a failed education. Mr. Hine discusses the effects, both positive and negative, of after-school work, and finds that working 10-12 hours a week has a positive influence on young people, but working more than 12 hours a week can be seriously detrimental. Mr. Hine implores parents to take teenage work seriously, and stresses the need to place limits on the hours they work. He challenges us to ``help young people integrate work into their lives and maximize its potential as a tool to help them grow up.'' Mr. Speaker, employment provides teenagers with valuable lessons about responsibility, punctuality, dealing with people, and money management, and it increases their self-esteem, encourages independence and teaches skills. On the other hand, long working hours are associated with all sorts of undesirable teenage behavior. According to Hine, working more than 11 hours a week is strongly correlated with teenage use of tobacco and alcohol, and working more than 26 hours a week shows the same correlation with marijuana and cocaine use. Studies have also found that teenagers working more than 11 hours a week have an increased rate of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. Working during the school year has become much more commonplace among America's youth over the past decades. Nearly a quarter of 14-year-olds and 38 percent of 15-year-olds have regular scheduled employment during the school year. When interviewed, eighty percent of high school students said that they have held jobs sometime during their high school years. Hine points out that young Americans are three times as likely to work than young people in Western Europe. Also, American youth who work average six times as many hours per work week as their European counterparts who are employed. Undoubtedly, those numbers reflect some of the reason for the comparative underachievement of American high school students. Mr. Speaker, young people working more than 20 hours a week are also less likely to finish high school. The average employed American high school student works 17 hours a week. Link this with 35 hours a week spent in school and homework usually suffers. Young people also sacrifice sleep and exercise and spend less time with their families. When work and school obligations conflict, many students end up giving a higher priority to work. Hine stresses that working in moderation, can be valuable. Teens who work 10-12 hours a week, actually receive higher grades than students who don't work at all. They learn important skills such as organization, teamwork, and responsibility. They exhibit a more mature attitude than their non-working classmates. Mr. Speaker, under current Federal law, minors aged 14- and 15-years- old may not work for more than three hours a day and a maximum of 18 hours a week, when school is in session. It is also unlawful for 14- and 15-year-olds to work before 7 a.m. and after 7 p.m. so that work will not interfere with learning. Minors who are 16 and 17, however, face no federal restrictions when it comes to the number of hours they can work and they can work late into the night. Mr. Speaker, teenagers should give education the top priority. This is nearly impossible when they are burdened with heavy work commitments. Our country is experiencing tremendous economic growth with low unemployment, resulting in a robust economy. This economic prosperity only creates greater pressures for employers to hire more teens and encourage them to work longer hours. We must not promote or permit practices that satisfy short-term economic demands without giving proper attention to the long-term future consequences of these policies. Mr. Speaker, my legislation, H.R. 2119, the ``Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act'' would provide tougher restrictions on the hours 14- and 15-year-olds can work, and would add new restrictions to minors aged 16 and 17. This legislation has the bipartisan support of over 60 Members of Congress. The ``Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act'' would reduce and limit the hours 14- and 15-year-olds would be allowed to work from 18 hours a week to 15 hours a week. Also, there are currently no restrictions on the amount of hours minors ages 16-18 can work. The ``Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act'' would change that. Under our legislation, if a teen aged 16, 17, or 18 and a full time high school student, he or she may not work more than 4 hours per day or more than 20 hours per week, and cannot work before 6 a.m. or after 10 p.m. when school is in session. Mr. Speaker, I will reintroduce the ``Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act'' in the 107th Congress, and I will urge that hearings be held on that legislation. Adoption of this legislation will reduce the problem of children working long hours when school is in session and strengthen 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, and work would be limited to 15 or 20 hours per week, depending on the age of the child. This is critical, Mr. Speaker, because the more hours children work during the school year, the more likely it becomes for education to be relegated to little more than a demanding nuisance. Mr. Speaker, too many teenagers are working long hours at the very time that they should be focusing on their education. It is important for children to learn the value of work, but education, not minimum- wage jobs, are the key to our young people's future. Our legislation is an important step in re-focusing attention upon education. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Thomas Hine's article ``Working at 14--and Paying for It'' from The Washington Post be placed in the Record for the benefit of our colleagues and urge this House to support meaningful comprehensive domestic child labor reforms and the adoption of H.R. 2119, the ``Young American Workers Bill of Rights Act.'' [From the Washington Post, Nov. 26, 2000] Working at 14--and Paying for it (By Thomas Hine) While doing research on teenagers a few years ago, I left a question on an Internet message board, asking young people who work about their on-the-job experiences. The replies were overwhelmingly positive. Compared with school and the rest of their lives, these teens agreed, working gave them a feeling of being grown-up, even when their duties weren't very inspiring. One youngster gave an eloquent testimonial to the sense of freedom and personal satisfaction he felt when he put on a Ronald McDonald costume and entertained children. In the clown suit, he wrote, he was able to both be himself and have a positive impact on others. It's easy to understand why young people like to work. First, of course, there's the money, the key to coolness for trend-conscious teens. But even more important is the sense of doing something that matters, of being essential. Adolescents--particularly the 14- and 15-year-olds who are joining the part-time work force in increasing numbers-- thrive on the sense that somebody is counting on them. And the retail and fast-food industries do just that, particularly during the holiday shopping season that began Friday. For the next several weeks, we will witness the ultimate expression of a powerful symbiotic relationship: the one between teenagers and the consumer society. Businesses get a plentiful supply of employees and high schoolers get a paycheck and a feeling of accomplishment. As a bonus, parents tend to give the arrangement almost unqualified approval, endorsing the self-reliance and personal responsibility that they believe comes with a job in the real world. But the arrangement has less appealing and sometimes serious consequences, which even the most enthusiastic student-workers and their parents should consider. To understand the consequences, you must first realize that for the most part we are not talking about kids picking up a few dollars in their spare time. Rather, we are talking about the majority who are members of a specific and unrecognized class. I call them the pampered proletariat. These young people are ``pampered'' because they come largely from families with middle-class incomes or better, in which parents make few demands on their children's earnings. Instead, the youths can spend their wages on cars, clothes and entertainment. The retail industry is more than happy to cooperate: Teens are advertisers' darlings, both because they spend so much (more than $160 billion last year), and because they are assumed to be developing habits that will last a lifetime. Nevertheless, they are a ``proletariat,'' because high school students putting in long part-time hours constitute a distinct American working class, one that receives low wages and few benefits. Much like the poorly paid factory workers who make so many of our clothes, shoes and consumer goods in overseas sweatshops, these young people help keep our shopping bills down and our fast food affordable. This pampered proletariat starts young. According to a 1999 study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly a quarter of 14-year-olds and 38 percent of 15-year-olds have regular scheduled employment (as opposed to casual baby-sitting or yard work) during the school year. By the time they are seniors, another BLS study found, 73 percent of young people work during at least part of the school year. A few of these young people, the ones who get featured in news stories, are making good money in challenging high-tech and Internet jobs. But their numbers are insignificant. The great majority are working for low wages doing just about what you would expect: The top three jobs for boys, according to the BLS, are cook, janitor and food preparer. For girls, they are cashier, waitress and office clerk. These jobs may help teens understand the value of work, but they have little intellectual content; with electronic cash registers and scanners, even cashiers hardly have to deal with numbers. Young Americans work far more than their counterparts in other developed nations. One 1997 study, which compared middle-class students from various countries, found that American students were three times as likely to work as those in Western Europe, and that they work six times as many hours each week. These figures undoubtedly reflect the effects of higher unemployment rates in Europe. But they also provide some context for understanding the comparative underachievement of American high school students. The average employed American high school student works 17 hours a week during the academic year. (Partly because of the proximity of jobs, the students who work the most tend to come from higher-income areas.) During the holiday season, many young people find themselves under pressure from their supervisors to work extra hours. And since school vacations don't start until the shopping season is nearly over, many students will be juggling final exams, term papers and a heavier work schedule. There is ample evidence that when the number of work hours exceeds 15 per week during the school year, the student workers suffer. On average, their grades go down and truancy increases. When work and school obligations conflict, the great majority will give top priority to their jobs. Unlike school, which is preparation for a distant goal, work feels more urgent, its crises are immediate and obvious--and it pays. Moreover, a number of studies document that long work hours are associated with all sorts of undesirable teenage behavior. According to a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), working more than 11 hours a week has a strong correlation with the likelihood that a teenager will smoke and drink, while more than 26 hours has the same correlation to the use of marijuana or cocaine. An earlier CDC study found that students who worked more than 11 hours a week had significantly higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. Not all the studies are so dismaying. In fact, there is a growing consensus that a modest amount of paid work--10 to 12 hours a week during the school year--has a positive impact on young people. Adolescents who work these kind of hours actually have higher grades than those who don't work at all. They learn to organize their time more effectively. The positive effects are strongest among lower-income students, whose long-term earning performance has been shown to be improved by work experience in their youth. After all, even though we commonly think the chief job of teenagers is to go to high school, it really is to figure out how to become successful adults. A highly intensive work experience in a field closely related to their interests and abilities might help many young people reach that goal more effectively than finishing high school. But, for the moment, at least, dropping out carries a heavy economic penalty and social stigma, and most young people don't dare consider it. Some companies that employ large numbers of young people thus argue that the low wages they pay are in the public interest because they're not high enough to tempt teens to drop out. But higher wages, if they were accompanied by a common expectation that young people would save a good part of those wages for further education and training, might serve society even better. Ironically, there have been earnest murmurings of public concern about the most fortunate of young workers, those earning large salaries doing computer technical support or designing Web pages. I've heard commentators wonder whether these e-employees are in danger of losing their youth, whether they are growing up too fast. The vast low-wage majority seems, by contrast, to be hidden in plain sight, facing just as many adult-like anxieties and conflicts without the money or glamour. And they cope with them by using solutions they see grown-ups using, such as drinking alcohol and buying things they don't need. These are the youngsters we should worry about. Young people working is not, in itself, a problem. Rather, problems occur when adults do not take the teenagers' work seriously. Too often we do not recognize its extent in their lives or its economic importance in ours. We do not recognize the difficulties and conflicts it raises for young people. We place few limits on their work; nor do we demand that they use their earnings responsibly. We don't raise enough questions about the cycle of consumption and self- indulgence that makes teenagers both a desirable market and an exploited labor force. And we don't help young people integrate work into their lives and maximize its potential as a tool to help them grow up. So, when you're stressed out during this shopping season, don't take out your anger on the overworked young people who serve you in the stores. They have troubles of their own.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this fall, the countries of Europe celebrated in Rome the 50th anniversary of the signing of the European Convention on Human Rights. As a result of the horrendous atrocities and suffering during World War II, the countries of Europe, in an effort to create greater unity, organized the Hague Congress on May 7, 1948, remembered as the ``Congress of Europe.'' Several months later, five foreign ministers met in Brussels to set up the Council of Europe, consisting of a ministerial committee and a consulting body. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention on Human Rights) was drawn up within the newly-formed Council of Europe and signed on November 4, 1950. The Convention entered into force in September 1953. The Convention was set up to take the first steps for the collective enforcement of certain rights enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. These rights range from protecting freedom of thought to the right to a fair trial. The first country to ratify the convention was the United Kingdom, which approved the document on March 8, 1951. Thus far, 41 countries have ratified the Convention, which currently protects the rights of over 800 million people. To mark the anniversary of the Convention, ministers from all of the countries which have ratified the Convention met for a two-day conference in Rome this fall. Lamberto Dini, the Italian Foreign Minister, opened the conference. He praised the achievements of the convention, but lamented the continuing abuses of human rights: ``In too many countries the dignity of too many individuals continues to be stamped on and despoiled, too often amid general indifference.'' The delegates met not only to celebrate the achievements of the past, but also to discuss many current human rights issues. The importance of the Convention was further highlighted by the presence of delegates from the United States and Japan, neither of whom are members of the convention. The vision set out in the Convention remains an unfinished project. Across the European continent, discrimination against vulnerable groups and individuals leads to mistreatment or torture, especially ethnic, religious and racial minorities, refugees and asylum seekers. Much work has been done by The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, a body set up in 1987 within the Council of Europe; nevertheless, the fact that many human rights abusers are able to act with impunity and escape justice continues to be a serious problem. Recently, human rights have been violated on a large scale in Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya; the onus is on European nations to improve intervention and rapid response methods in order to prevent such violations of human rights occurring in the future. The countries of Europe should rest assured that the United States will stand with our European friends in their efforts to achieve the goals of the Convention.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Lyn Chan, a recently retired fourth-grade teacher who taught at the Skyline Elementary School in Daly City, California in my Congressional District. Ms. Chan has been awarded the Christa McAuliffe Award. This award, which is presented annually by the National Education Association (NEA), is the highest professional honor that the NEA can bestow upon its members. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, the Christa McAuliffe Award was created to honor the memory of Christa McAuliffe, the teacher chosen by NASA to be the first private United States citizen to participate in a space flight. After her death during the ill-fated Challenger shuttle launch in 1986, the NEA established an award in her honor to pay tribute to her professionalism, dedication, and desire to ``touch the future'' through excellence in teaching. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Chan is certainly most deserving of this high honor. She exhibited outstanding innovation and contributed extraordinary service in the field of education. Utilizing advanced technologies such as laser discs, CD-ROMs, camcorders, robotics, and other such means, she fired the inquisitiveness of her students in their study of the sciences. Too often we hear about American students lagging behind the rest of the world in math and science skills. Ms. Chan is one teacher doing all she can to rectify this problem, and she deserves our commendation for her efforts. It is my sincere hope that other teaches will follow her excellent lead. Ms. Chan also served as a mentor for the NEA Foundation's The Road Ahead program. This NEA program paired Ms. Chan with an elementary school and its faculty in Columbia, South Carolina. As a mentor to her South Carolina colleagues, Ms. Chan was able to provide her fellow teachers with advice, knowledge, and other tools necessary to integrate technology with teaching and learning. Mr. Speaker, Lyn Chan was characterized by one of her colleagues as a ``teacher who goes the extra mile not for rewards or recognition, but simply out of her love for teaching and a desire to help all students succeed.'' I cannot think of a higher compliment to extend to an educator. Mr. Speaker, it has also been said that Ms. Chan is the model of excellence in teaching because of her constant pursuit of new knowledge and skills to enhance her role as a professional educator, and through her innovative approaches in applying new technologies to teaching and learning. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring and commending Ms. Chan on her accomplishments and particularly to join me in congratulating her for receiving the National Education Association's Christa McAuliffe Award.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, hardly a week goes by without a child or an adult--a member of the family or an innocent neighbor--being injured or even killed by a ``pet'' lion, tiger, or other wild animal. Owning these wild animals is a serious responsibility, but it is unfortunately a responsibility that is not taken seriously by some people. In response to this serious problem, Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I introduced H.R. 5057--the Shambala Wild Animal Protection Act. The legislation would amend the Animal Welfare Act to protect public safety by placing restrictions and controls on the personal possession, breeding, import, export, transfer, or sale of protected wild animals such as lions, tigers, leopards, and similar animals. The bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish standards that must be met to permit personal possession of these wild animals where no regulation currently exists. The purpose of this legislation is to establish criteria for ownership both to protect the public and to assure that these beautiful animals are treated humanely. In developing this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I have worked with leaders of the animal sanctuary community who, like me, have been alarmed about the many incidents relating to death and injury resulting from irresponsible possession of wild animals. The principal leader of this effort is Tippi Hedren of the Roar Foundation and the Shambala Preserve in California. Ms. Hedren is the star of Alfred Hitchcock's classic films, The Birds and Marne, and other films. The legislation would require a permit for the personal possession of such animals, but any agency or official of the Federal Government or of a state or local government or research facility which is currently regulated under the Animal Welfare Act would not be required to obtain this additional permit. Zoos, animal parks, and wildlife sanctuaries also would not need this additional permit if the facility has been licenced by state or local authorities whose standards meet or exceed the requirements that would be established in bill. Individuals currently possessing protected wild animals on the effective date of the enactment of this legislation would retain possession if they apply for a permit within one year of the date of the enactment of the legislation. The Secretary of Agriculture through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service would establish specific personal permitting requirements, as well as housing and care standards for each species covered by the legislation. Mr. Speaker, a number of our distinguished colleagues have joined me as cosponsors of H.R. 5057, including Mr. Abercrombie of Hawaii, Mr. DeFazio of Oregon, Ms. Eshoo of California, Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Filner of California, Mr. Gallegly of California, Mr. Kasich of Ohio, Mr. Kleczka of Wisconsin, Mr. Kucinich of Ohio, Ms. Lowey of New York, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Morella of Maryland, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Pallone of New Jersey, Mr. Porter of Illinois, Ms. Rivers of Michigan, Mr. Shays of Connecticut, Mr. Stark of California, and Mr. Waxman of California. This fall, Mr. Speaker, under the sponsorship of my friend and colleague from California, Richard Pombo, we introduced H.R. 5360, which would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of federal and state laws that regulate private ownership of these exotic wild animals and would also direct the Secretary to make recommendations to the Congress regarding these matters. We felt that such a study would provide the necessary groundwork to deal effectively and knowledgeably to achieve the goals of H.R. 5057. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that despite the length of time we have spent in session this fall, we have not been able to deal with either the Shambala Wild Animal Protection Act or, at the very least, with the more modest proposal I made with Congressman Pombo in H.R. 5360 to undertake a thorough analysis of existing laws and regulations at the state and federal level and to propose to the Congress ways to deal with the matter of private ownership of these animals. Mr. Speaker, if my constituents return me to the Congress in the upcoming elections, I intend to pursue this matter in the next session of the Congress. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in the effort to deal with this serious public safety and animal welfare issue.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on September 1, 1939--the day the Second World War began with the Nazi invasion of Poland--the government of Japan named Chiune Sugihara its consul in Lithuania. As the war progressed in its destruction and as the Nazi anti-Semites began their systematic extermination of Jews in Nazi-conquered territory, Sugihara was besieged by Jews seeking visas to flee the Nazi Holocaust. After requesting authorization three times to issue Japanese visas to these victims of Nazi persecution and being rejected twice and ignored once, he disregarded his government's instructions and issued thousands of visas to Polish Jews. Mr. Sugihara signed visas day and night for thirty days. Thanks to these documents, many of the refugees were able to escape to Kobe, Japan, and from there were able to find refuge in other countries. Not long after issuing these visas in Lithuania, Mr. Sugihara was assigned to serve in Germany. When he returned to Japan at the end of World War II, the Japanese government forced him to resign from the diplomatic service. He was told that this was because of ``that incident in Lithuania.'' Mr. Sugihara died in 1986 at the age of 86 without ever being officially recognized for his outstanding humanitarian service by the government of Japan. Outside Japan Chiune Sugihara has long been recognized as a hero. The government of Lithuania named a street in his honor. Israel has designated him a ``Righteous Gentile.'' The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum here in Washington has presented a special exhibit paying tribute to his efforts. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month--at long last--the government of Japan acknowledged the true heroism of its own citizens. On the 100th anniversary of the birth of Chiune Sugihara and 14 years after his death. In a modest ceremony at the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo, Japanese Foreign Minister Yohei Kono apologized to Yukiko Sugihara, the widow of Chiune Sugihara: ``Here we praise Chiune Sugihara's courageous and humanitarian act conducted in an extreme situation amid the Nazi persecution of Jews.'' He apologized to Mrs. Sugihara ``for the long neglect'' and promised that he would ``see that his achievements are known to future generations.'' On this occasion, the Foreign Minister unveiled a plaque honoring Mr. Sugihara. The copper plaque was placed on the wall of the Foreign Ministry's Diplomatic Record Office in Tokyo, and it reads, in part: ``A courageous diplomat of humanity. In commemoration of the 100th anniversary of his birth.'' Also this month in Los Angeles a documentary film, ``Sugihara: Conspiracy of Kindness'' which chronicles the heroism of Chiune Sugihara, was awarded the Pare Lorentz prize of the International Documentary Association. The IDA prize has been called ``the Oscar of the documentary world.'' The film also received the Best Documentary award at the Hollywood Film Festival this past August. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues in the Congress to join me in honoring Chiune Sugihara on the 100th anniversary of his birth. I welcome the action of the government of Japan in belatedly recognizing the courage and humanity of this outstanding diplomat. Long after the faceless nameless bureaucrats who blindly and timidly followed instructions are forgotten by history, the determination and compassion of Chiune Sugihara will continue to serve as an example of the finest of human action and bring honor to his memory.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Washington Post published an excellent article by His Excellency David Ivry, ambassador of Israel to the United States. Ambassador Ivry has served as commander of the Israeli Air Force and Deputy Chief of the General Staff. For the past year he has represented Israel in the United States. I want to commend Ambassador Ivry's article to my colleagues in the Congress. Mr. Speaker, all of us regret the tragic deaths which have resulted from the violence in the Middle East. It is a great tragedy that this turmoil has turned the focus from efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully to dealing with a new wave of disorder that undermines the basis for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The violence is unacceptable, and it is undermining the very basis for peace--the notion that Palestinians and Israelis can live together. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the evening newscasts are giving a false image of the true dimensions and nature of this violence. The carefully orchestrated turmoil and the cynical and tragic use of little children should stand condemned by all of us. It is important that we understand the full significance of what is happening as this disorder continues to threaten stability and the progress that has already been achieved. Ambassador Ivry has laid out in particularly clear and incisive terms the Israeli interest in achieving a peaceful reconciliation with the Palestinians. He also explains the position and policy of the Israeli government in its effort to deal with the unacceptable levels of Palestinian-orchestrated violence that now threatens to undermine the progress that has been achieved over the past seven years. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Ambassador Ivry's article be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to give it the careful and thoughtful attention that it deserves. Israel's Restraint By David Ivry The Washington Post, Oct. 27, 2000 The current wave of violence in the Middle East has left more than 100 Palestinians dead, while the number of Israeli fatalities has been relatively small. This uneven casualty ratio has raised questions by some as to whether the Israeli forces are too eager to pull their triggers in response to Palestinian violence. The answer to such concerns is clear: Israel has shown the greatest restraint possible in the face of continued violent provocations, and Israel's forces have made a maximum effort to avoid Palestinian fatalities. Israel has no interest in the continuation of violence, and our tactical response has been to avoid actions that could lead to escalation. Every Israeli soldier on the ground receives strict orders as to the rules of engagement, which state clearly when it is permissible to use live fire. An Israeli soldier may respond only when shot at first or in a life-threatening situation. In either case his response must be directed at the source of the fire. On Oct. 12, the day the two Israeli soldiers were brutally lynched in Ramallah, Israel responded by sending helicopters into action in Ramallah and Gaza. Not only were our pilots under strict instructions to surgically strike designated points but Israel also warned the Palestinians to evacuate the specified targets. It was no accident that there were no Palestinian fatalities in the Israeli counterstrike. Israel's operational procedures for dealing with violent crowds involve the use of teargas and rubber bullets. Palestinians are propagating the fallacy that Israeli troops meet street demonstrators with live fire. Unfortunately, we have witnessed many incidents in which armed Palestinians have opened fire on Israelis from street demonstrations-- using their fellow Palestinians as human shields. The Palestinian leadership has gone as far as closing the schools and busing children to points of friction, knowingly putting youngsters in harm's way. International treaties clearly condemn the enlisting of children to participate in hostilities. The international community should speak out against this reprehensible exploitation of children for political purposes. Today's violence is quite different from that of the intifada in the 1980s. Israel then controlled the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Israeli soldiers were stationed inside Palestinian cities. Today, as a result of the Oslo accords, 40 percent of the territories, including all the population centers, are under Palestinian control with more than 95 percent of Palestinians living directly under the rule of the Palestinian Authority. Our forces sit outside the population centers at points agreed to in the Israeli-Palestinian interim agreements. For violent incidents to erupt, Palestinians must seek out those forces or Israeli civilian targets. During the intifada, our forces had to deal primarily with violent demonstrations. Currently, Israeli soldiers face armed Palestinian forces, either the official Palestinian security or the Tanzim militia (which, according to the interim agreements, should not have weapons at all). Palestinian gunmen have opened fire on Israelis in hundreds of incidents. Pictures of Palestinian boys with slingshots do not accurately reflect this new reality on the ground. The ultimate irony of the current situation is that Prime Minister Ehud Barak has shown unprecedented flexibility in the peace process. The Palestinians, rather than opting to negotiate, chose to revert to violence. It was the Palestinian side that reneged on the cease-fire brokered by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in Paris, and it was the Palestinian side that failed to implement the deal brokered by President Clinton at Sharm el-Sheikh. Israel did not want, seek or encourage this round of fighting. The questions must be asked: Which side has acted to contain and to end the violence, and which side has not? The truth about the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli deaths is that Israelis have been actively seeking to limit fatal casualties in this conflict while, unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Palestinian side. As retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark wrote recently: ``for the Palestinians, every casualty, even their own, can be a strategic gain.'' As long as the Palestinian leadership acts on the assumption that there is a net political advantage in bloodshed, surely they, and those in the Arab world who encourage this violent strategy, should be held accountable for the appalling and unnecessary loss of life over the past four weeks.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the four-day Vilnius International Forum on Holocaust-Era Looted Cultural Assets, which was held in Vilnius, Lithuania, earlier this month. Representatives of 37 countries, the Council of Europe, and 17 non-governmental organizations participated in this important conference. The United States was very ably represented by our Deputy Secretary of Treasury, Stuart E. Eizenstat, who is our Government's representative on Holocaust restitution issues. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Government of Lithuania for hosting this important conference. I also want to pay particular tribute to my dear friend Emanuelis Zingeris, a former member of the Lithuanian Seimas (Parliament), who conceived and organized this outstanding Vilnius Forum, and served as the Chairman of the Forum Organizing Committee. Zingeris' parents were among the few members of Lithuania's once-flourishing Jewish community who survived the Holocaust. An estimated 95 percent of Lithuania's Jewish community were killed by Nazi murderers during World War II. Mr. Speaker, the Vilnius Forum was the result of a resolution on ``looted Jewish Cultural Property,'' which was prepared by Emanuelis Zingeris and adopted last year by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It called for the organization of a European conference to follow up on the Washington Conference on Holocaust Era Assets and give special attention to the return of cultural property and relevant legislative reform. In an outstanding address opening the gathering, Mr. Zingeris expressed the importance of the conference internationally and for Lithuania in particular: ``As long as a society fails to perceive the need to seek justice, it may not be called a civic society. The moves taken here in Lithuania like the Vilnius International Forum, are a significant contribution to the development of our civic society. These processes, including the Forum, are our ticket back to Europe.'' The purposes of the Vilnius Forum, which it admirably met, were to review progress on the implementation of the statement of principles that was adopted at the Washington Conference, to provide a forum for the discussion of the process of compiling an inventory of cultural assets looted during the Holocaust and their restitution to their rightful owners, and to establish legislative and other guidelines for the implementation of a process for the return of such Holocaust-Era assets. In particular, the Forum focused discussion on the legal, historical, archival, and museum-related problems related to the search, identification, and restitution of plundered cultural property. The declaration issued at the conclusion of the Forum called upon governments to work together to achieve these objectives. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that important progress was made at the Vilnius Forum. The Lithuanian Seimas (Parliament), on the eve of the opening of the conference, voted to turn over 370 Torah scrolls to Jewish groups in a gesture consistent with the objectives of the Forum. These scrolls, which have been kept in the Lithuanian state library, will be turned over to Jewish organizations and Jewish synagogues within Lithuania. A second important result of the conference, Mr. Speaker, was the breakthrough agreement reached by the governments of the United States and Russia on opening Russian archives to assist in the recovery of art and cultural treasures looted by the Nazis during the World War II. The agreement includes the establishment of a U.S.-based foundation which will help identify plundered cultural assets by creating a register of such cultural items. Christie's Auction House in the United States secured an initial $500,000 contribution from my dear friends Ronald Lauder, the President of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, and Edgar Bronfman, President of the World Jewish Congress, to establish this register. Mr. Speaker, access to Russian archives has long been a crucial concern of Jewish communities and others concerned about the restitution of art and other property stolen from Holocaust victims by the Nazis. This new agreement is an important step forward with the effort to catalogue seized property in Russian museums, and it follows the adoption of legislation by the Russian Duma last May establishing the legal right of Nazi victims to claim assets removed to the Soviet Union at the end of World War II. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in expressing gratitude and appreciation to the Government of Lithuania for hosting the highly successful Vilnius Forum, to Stuart Eizenstat for his outstanding efforts in representing the position of the United States at this conference, and particularly to Emanuelis Zingeris for his enthusiastic leadership in bringing this important event together.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to call to the attention of my colleagues the selection of Ms. Lise Thibault as a member of the World Committee on Disability. Ms. Thibault brings to her new position some thirty years of leadership in the disability movement in her native country, Canada. When Lise Thibault was a teenager, she suffered a tobogganing accident that left her with a permanent disability; however, having to use a wheelchair has never slowed her down. She went on to become a wife, the mother of two, the grandmother of five, and a prominent public figure. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Thibault taught adult education and worked for the Canadian Broadcasting Company as a host and a researcher for programs about family and community issues. She was appointed to the Quebec Ministry of Education in 1977, became director-general of the Quebec Office for Persons with Disabilities, and Vice President of the Quebec Occupational Health and Safety Board (1987-1993). Throughout her life, she has been an active leader in the disabled community, serving as president and director general of the Quebec Bureau for the Handicapped and board member of the Canadian Red Cross. In 1994, Lise Thibault was given the YWCA's ``Woman of Merit'' award for her involvement in the community. That same year, she was named ``Personality of the Year'' by Chatelaine Magazine. On January 30, 1997, she was sworn in as Quebec's 27th Lieutenant Governor by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Ms. Thibault is the first woman and the first person with a disability to hold this office. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in welcoming this extraordinary warm-hearted woman who has dedicated herself to the well- being of others, Ms. Lise Thibault, as a member of the World Committee on Disability.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to David Foster on the occasion of his receipt of the Albert Schweitzer Leadership Award. This prestigious award is given annually by the Hugh O'Brian Youth Leadership Foundation (HOBY) to individuals who have distinguished themselves through public service and who have contributed significantly to the education and motivation of youth. The award is named after the famous doctor, himself a great humanitarian, who made a lasting impression on Hugh O'Brian during a visit to Schweitzer's African clinic. It was there that Dr. Schweitzer expounded to Mr. O'Brian his philosophy of the importance of motivating our youth. Simply stated, Dr. Schweitzer believed that, ``the most important thing in education is to teach young people to think for themselves.'' Almost immediately after returning from his visit with Dr. Schweitzer, Hugh O'Brian initiated the HOBY program to put that philosophy into practice. In the beginning HOBY ran leadership seminars for high school sophomores in Los Angeles, and eventually expanded to three-day seminars across the country. Each year over 20,000 students participate in HOBY programs that are designed to implement Dr. Schweitzer's philosophy, teaching young people to think for themselves. Over the years many great humanitarians have received the Albert Schweitzer Leadership award, and now another distinguished name can be added to that list, the musical genius and extraordinary humanitarian David Foster. Mr. Speaker, David Foster rose to prominence in the music scene in 1973, when his band Skylark scored a top ten hit with their song ``Wildflower,'' and he has been actively involved in the music industry since that time. Mr. Foster quickly became a highly sought after session musician, performing with the likes of John Lennon, George Harrison, Diana Ross, Rod Stewart, and Barbra Streisand, among others. He turned his attention to song-writing and production, where he achieved extraordinary success. David Foster has been nominated for 42 Grammy Awards, winning an astounding 14 times. Over the years his work has encompassed just about every style of music including Rock, Rhythm and Blues, Pop, Soul, Country, Jazz and Classical. Of course, Mr. Speaker, David Foster is not being honored with the Albert Schweitzer Leadership Award for his musical talents, but because he has used these immense talents to help others. He was instrumental in assembling popular Canadian recording artists Bryan Adams, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, and Gordon Lightfoot to record ``Tears Are Not Enough,'' a song he co-wrote to bring attention to the plight of famine victims in Africa in the 1980's and to raise funds for their relief. He also was involved in the writing and the production of the entertainment industry's salute to the United States troops serving in the Persian Gulf, ``Voices that Care.'' To date, Voices that Care has donated over one million dollars to the Red Cross and the U.S.O. In addition to his involvement in these worthy endeavors, he established the David Foster Foundation, which assists families of children in need of organ transplants. According to the most recent figures, the David Foster Foundation has raised several million dollars and assisted hundreds of children and their families as they go through the horrific ordeal of an organ transplant. David also has directly involved himself with other charitable organizations such as the Race to Erase MS, the Andrew Agassi Foundation, Malibu High School Scholarship Program, and Cedars-Sinai Research for Women's Cancer, among others. Mr. Speaker, David Foster is the personification of charitable generosity. His tireless efforts on behalf of humanitarian causes is a trait all of us can admire. I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring him on the occasion of his receiving the Albert Schweitzer Leadership Award.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1438, the National Law Enforcement Memorial Museum Act. This important piece of legislation would give all Americans a place to honor and commemorate the members of our nation's law enforcement agencies and provide a museum for those who have made the supreme sacrifice in the line of duty. Mr. Speaker, during our nation's history, nearly 15,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers have lost their lives in the line of duty. According to the most recent FBI statistics, almost 63,000 officers are assaulted each year, and this results in more than 21,000 injuries. I am appalled to report that on average, one police officer is killed somewhere in the United States every 54 hours. Everyday some 740,000 law enforcement professionals are asked to put their lives on the line to protect the safety of others. We owe all of these officers a huge debt of gratitude. I believe that the time has come to honor all law enforcement officers and to pay particular honor to their fallen colleagues for their outstanding service and sacrifice made for our country. Mr. Speaker, this important legislation will establish a comprehensive law enforcement museum and research repository. The museum will permit researchers, practitioners, and the general public to have access to this premiere source of information on issues related to law enforcement history and safety. As my colleagues are aware, in 1984 we mandated the establishment of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. This memorial was dedicated in 1991 just a few blocks from this Capitol Building. The legislation we are considering today calls for the construction for the National Law Enforcement Museum near the current memorial, a proper place for this important museum. Mr. Speaker, the time has come to finish what we began in 1984, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important legislation.

Mr. LANTOS

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

Mr. LANTOS

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

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time, and I want to thank him for introducing this resolution, which I strongly support. At the outset, Mr. Speaker, let me express on behalf of all of us in this body our regret at the tragic deaths which have resulted from the violence that broke out in the Middle East. As a grandfather of 17, I particularly regret the death of children, although I recognize that there was a reckless and cynical exploitation of children by the Palestinian leadership. Children have no place in such violent demonstrations, and their reckless exploitation I think stands self- condemned. Mr. Speaker, once again the situation in the Middle East has turned from efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully to a new wave of violence that undermines the basis for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. No one is more supportive of the Middle East peace process than I am, Mr. Speaker. I also support the efforts to assist the Palestinians in their attempt towards moving towards self-government, increasing their economic well-being, and facilitating their cooperation in all areas with the Israelis. The current wave of violence, however, Mr. Speaker, is simply unacceptable. It is undermining the very basis for peace, the notion that Palestinians and Israelis can live together. In 1993, at Oslo, the principle of reconciliation was that the Palestinian leadership renounce violence as a means of achieving their political aims. In the last few weeks it has become obvious that Arafat and his group are unwilling to live up to this commitment. At Camp David, the government of Israel made sweeping proposals that moved the two sides closer than they have ever been in reaching a historic agreement and reconciliation. Instead of making a counterproposal to this most important move, Arafat has encouraged, promoted, and abetted violence and refused to engage in further negotiations. Even after an international summit prescribed the way of winding down this violence, the Palestinians continued their violent actions. These actions now show dangers of spilling over into other countries and have the potential of becoming a regional crisis. I therefore believe, Mr. Speaker, it is important that our resolution move forward at this time. Under our resolution, Congress expresses its solidarity with the state and people of Israel, condemns the Arafat leadership for doing so little to stop the violence, calls upon that leadership to refrain from further encouragement of violence and to show respect for all holy sites, and to settle all grievances through negotiations. Our resolution commends past and present administrations in their effort to find balanced resolutions to this long-standing conflict. Now all the parties in the region need to step back and to try to find the way to end this violence and to return to the negotiating table. That will not come very fast. We need to pass this resolution today to ensure that the Congress of the United States sends a clear message in support of peace and the State of Israel. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 426. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the results of the General Assembly vote on Israeli actions in occupied territory. Annex to Mr. Gilman's Remarks [source: general assembly plenary press release GA/9793 emergency special session 20 October 2000 14th meeting (pm)] ``Vote on Israeli Actions in Occupied Territory'' ``The Assembly adopted the resolution on illegal Israeli actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory (document A/ES-10/L.6) by a recorded vote of 92 in favour to 6 against, with 46 abstentions, as follows:'' ``In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.'' ``Against: Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Tuvalu, United States.'' ``Abstain: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Barbados, Benin, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, United Kingdom.'' ``Absent: Afghanistan, Angola, Bahamas, Belarus, Bhutan, Cambodia, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Honduras, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Nigeria, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.