Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the memory of Bobb McKittrick of San Mateo, California. Mr. McKittrick, the longtime offensive line coach of the San Francisco 49ers, passed away last Wednesday after a lengthy battle against bile duct cancer. He leaves behind a loving family and a reputation as one of the premiere leaders and motivators in the National Football League. His legacy includes the affection of the hundreds of athletes whose lives he touched with his passion, determination, and commitment to excellence as well as to tens of thousands of devoted fans, for whom he was an example of dedication and public spiritedness. Mr. Speaker, I ask that an article by Michael Silver from the April 26, 1999, issue of Sports Illustrated about the courage, inspiration, and example of Bobb McKittrick be placed in the Record. It chronicles his extraordinary coaching record with the 49ers, his positive influence on the careers and lives of his players and friends, and his characteristically tenacious fight against cancer. Mr. Speaker, the story of Bobb McKittrick is an inspiring one. One Tough Customer: Outspoken Niners Assistant Bobb McKittrick Is Battling Cancer and Liver Disease With the Same Fierce Determination That Made Him One of the Best Coaches in the Game They were embattled behemoths in big trouble, and they felt like the smallest men on earth. Late in the third quarter of a game against the Eagles on a chilly September afternoon in Philadelphia 10 years ago, Harris Barton and his fellow San Francisco 49ers offensive linemen trudged off the field with their heads down and their ears pricked. Joe Montana, the Niners' fine china, had been sacked eight times. The Eagles led by 11 points, and censure was a certainty: Coach George Seifert's face was convulsing like Mick Jagger's, offensive coordinator Mike Holmgren was growling into his headset, and offensive line coach Bobb McKittrick was preparing to vent his frustrations. As the linemen took a seat on the bench, McKittrick stared down at veterans Guy McIntyre, Bubba Paris and Jesse Sapolu and said calmly, ``You three might want to start praying about now.'' Then he turned to Barton. ``And Harris,'' McKittrick added, ``if you know a Jewish prayer, you might want to say it.'' Without swearing, getting personal or raising his voice, McKittrick, a former Marine who makes Chris Rock seem vague and indirect, had delivered a sharp motivational message. The linemen buckled down, Montana threw four touchdown passes in the fourth quarter, and San Francisco won by 10. The next day McKittrick called Montana into an offensive line meeting and apologized for the breakdown in protection. Montana shrugged it off, but word got around, giving players another reason to respect a man who may be the most successful position coach of his era. In a business in which coaches get relocated, recycled and removed as a matter of course, McKittrick, 63, has been the Niners' offensive line coach for 20 seasons. During that time San Francisco has won five Super Bowls and put together the most successful two-decade run in NFL history, and the fact that McKittrick has been entrenched in the same job throughout that span, under three head coaches, is not accidental. In addition to routinely milking exceptional production out of players overlooked or cast off by other teams, McKittrick has been the glue that has held together the Niners' vaunted West Coast attack. Bill Walsh, recently rehired as San Francisco's general manager, says McKittrick ``has developed more offensive line knowledge than anyone, ever. The continuity of the line, its consistent ability to protect the quarterback and open running lanes, has been the cornerstone of the 49ers' success over the past 20 years, and without Bobb, I don't think it happens. His men have played longer, with better technique, more production, fewer injuries. In every possible category you can measure, he's right at the top.'' The Niners are so queasy about the notion of ever working without McKittrick that they told him he'd have a job for life when he was mulling an offer to become the St. Louis Rams' offensive coordinator after the 1994 season. He recently signed a two-year deal, and in the weeks leading up to the draft, he was busy breaking down film on top line prospects--an endeavor that in most years is about as fruitful for McKittrick as Academy Award voters viewing Brian Bosworth movies. The San Francisco brass concentrates on drafting talent at other positions and relies on McKittrick to excel with lesser-regarded linemen. Few coaches have done so much with so little, but no one is taking McKittrick for granted anymore. In January, four days after the 49ers were eliminated from the NFC playoffs by the Atlanta Falcons, McKittrick received a medical double whammy: Doctors told him that he had cancer and that he needed a liver transplant. McKittrick, whose colon was removed 17 years ago after precancerous cells were detected, has a malignancy on his bile duct. He has begun undergoing radiation and chemotherapy at Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto. He needs a liver transplant because he is suffering from cholangiocarcinoma. He is on a waiting list for a new liver. While his relatives, friends and colleagues are worried sick, McKittrick, predictably, has been calm, even upbeat. Though down 20 pounds from his normal 200, he insists on keeping the bulk of his coaching responsibilities, faithfully reporting to work with the catheter used to administer chemotherapy treatments sticking out of his left arm. ``It's a difficult situation,'' he says, ``but I went through six weeks of boot camp, and it can't be any worse than that. I think I can go through anything--and it sure beats the alternative.'' On a mild Monday afternoon in late March, McKittrick walks into the three-bedroom house in San Mateo where he and his wife, Teckla, have lived since 1979. ``You've got this place freezing,'' he tells her before leaving the room to turn up the heat. ``He's cold,'' Teckla says to a visitor. ``Now can you tell something's wrong?'' Raised in Baker, a northeast Oregon farm town where the winters are frigid, McKittrick developed a stubborn resistance to cold at an early age. He unfailingly wears shorts and a T-shirt to even the most bone-chilling practice sessions, and when the 49ers travel to colder climes, McKittrick packs lightly. During a Monday-night game played in freezing rain at Chicago's Soldier Field in October 1988, McKittrick wore a short-sleeve shirt but no jacket. At one point his teeth were chattering so much that he was unable to enunciate a running play to Walsh, who subsequently decreed that all coaches must cover their arms during harsh weather. When the Niners returned to Chicago the following January for the NFC Championship Game, McKittrick complied with the new policy by donning a windbreaker--on a day in which the windchill factor reached -47[degrees]. At such moments McKittrick, with his shaved head and stocky frame, seems to be as much caricature as character. ``Everybody notices the physical part, but when it comes to emotional strength, he's probably the toughest person I know,'' says Seifert, who now coaches the Carolina Panthers. ``He has an ability to deal with things that would shatter most people.'' After having his colon removed, McKittrick wore a colostomy bag for a year before a second operation allowed him to discard it. ``He had this device strapped to his hip,'' Seifert says, ``and I'll never forget the sight of him running onto the practice field holding that bag so it wouldn't fall. How devastating and emotionally trying that must have been. Had it been me, I don't know that I could have coached again.'' McKittrick's toughness is rivaled only by his bluntness. ``He's brutally honest with me, too,'' says Teckla, who married Bobb in 1958. ``It's one thing when he tells me my hair looks funny, but I'm constantly worried he's going to get fired [for speaking his mind].'' Barton says he and other linemen used to write down some of McKittrick's more eye- opening statements. ``One of the classics was when we drafted this 6'7" guy named Larry Clarkson [in '88],'' Barton says. ``Every day in training camp [defensive end] Charles Haley would run around him, then so would the second-teamer, and Larry would end up on the ground. Finally we're in a meeting one night, and Bobb says, `Jeez, Larry, I don't think you have the coordination to take the fork from the plate to your mouth.' '' As harsh as he sometimes sounds, McKittrick gets away with it, partly because he can take criticism as unemotionally as he dishes it out. He regularly challenges his bosses in meetings, but, says Seifert, ``after a while, that becomes part of the charm of the man.'' McKittrick says one reason he has not sought jobs with bigger titles is the political correctness he associates with such roles. ``I'd rather teach than be an administrator,'' he says. ``I don't like a lot of the things that administrators have to do.'' While some head coaches might view vocal dissent as a threat, at least one of McKittrick's friends--a man who had some pretty decent success as UCLA's basketball coach from 1949 to '75--believes it's invaluable. ``An assistant coach who's afraid to speak his mind isn't very helpful,'' says John Wooden, who grew close to McKittrick during the latter's stint as a Bruins football assistant from 1965 to '70. ``A head coach should never want a yes-man: He'll just inflate your ego, and your ego's probably big enough as it is. An assistant as bright as Bobb could only be an asset.'' Honest as he is, McKittrick could not bring himself to tell Teckla about his cancer. He found out shortly before they embarked upon a nine-day trip to visit their two sons, in Oregon and California and, not wanting to spoil the vacation, stayed mum. For all of Bobb's sensible stoicism, Teckla is his polar opposite, an emotional worry-wart who sheds tears as readily as some people clear their throats. They met as Oregon State undergrads at a study table, conversing for 20 minutes in a group setting. ``The next day,'' Teckla says, ``he told someone he had met the woman he was going to marry.'' Together they've had more of a life together than most coaching couples, sharing a passion for history that has inspired vacations to places like Normandy and Russia as well as cruises on the Danube and the Baltic Sea. In late January, McKittrick returned from his vacation and went back to work, figuring he'd break the news to Teckla that evening. Before he could, however, he received a frantic call from her: An oncologist's assistant had phoned the McKittrick house to confirm an appointment. ``My wife was in tears for the next two weeks,'' Bobb says. ``She hears cancer and immediately thinks, You're going to die. That's not the way I'm approaching it.'' McKittrick's approach to life has never been orthodox. In seventh grade he added a third b to his first name because, he says, ``I just wanted to be different.'' A high school valedictorian who was also a decorated student at Oregon State, McKittrick was persuaded by Tommy Prothro, his coach when he walked on as an offensive lineman for the Beavers, to return to his alma mater as an assistant after his three years of service in the Marines. McKittrick followed Prothro to UCLA, the Los Angeles Rams and then to the San Diego Chargers, where he and fellow assistant Walsh became friends. When Walsh was hired as 49ers coach in 1979, he asked McKittrick to come along. McKittrick compares Walsh's recent return to the 49ers, who had been reeling from front-office turmoil, to Churchill's reign as Britain's prime minister during World War II. ``He had been out of favor,'' McKittrick says, ``but when the Nazis were threatening to overrun Europe, they turned to him for his dynamic leadership, and he held them together.'' McKittrick is not only a voracious reader of nonfiction but also a genealogy freak who serves as an unofficial historian for his hometown. He also keeps a meticulous journal designed to ``give my [two] grandkids an idea of what my life was like.'' According to his good friend, Loring De Martini, McKittrick's life is easy to describe: ``Bobb is almost a saint. He's a guy who has never willfully done a wrong thing.'' Not everyone would nominate him for sainthood. Drawing on some of the blocking methods he learned from Prothro, McKittrick recruited relatively small, agile linemen and taught them techniques--the cut block, the reverse-shoulder block, the chop--most of which were legal, at least when executed perfectly, but which infuriated opponents. After a 1985 game, Los Angeles Raiders defensive lineman Howie Long charged after McKittrick in a tunnel at the L.A. Coliseum and vented; the two haven't spoken since. In his book Dark Side of the Game, former Falcons defensive lineman Tim Green referred to McKittrick as Dr. Mean. McKittrick notes that in recent years, at least a third of the teams in the NFL have adopted his controversial techniques. ``Those big, tough guys on defense want to play our strength against their strength,'' he says. ``I'd rather play our strength against their weakness.'' McKittrick's supporters far outnumber his detractors. Holmgren, 49ers coach Steve Mariucci and Denver Broncos coach Mike Shanahan credit him with helping them assimilate Walsh's concepts, and Raiders coach Jon Gruden, who began his NFL career breaking down film for McKittrick in 1990, refers to McKittrick as ``my idol, the best coach I've ever been around.'' Shanahan says McKittrick, with whom he worked for three seasons as a San Francisco assistant, ``has forgotten more football than I know, but what really stands out is his incredible work ethic. He leaves no stone unturned, and that's why everybody considers him the best in the business.'' Alas, McKittrick's prowess as a coach is not at the forefront of his friends' minds. Call someone looking for a quote, and instead of answers you get questions: How's Bobb? Is he going to get his liver? The answers are unclear, but things could be better. The chemotherapy has sapped McKittrick, and last weekend he was hospitalized with a 104[degree] temperature. He has another worry. In mid-March, Teckla was rushed to Stanford's emergency room with what doctors feared was a heart attack. It turned out to be a problem with her gallbladder, which is scheduled to be removed in early May. The doctors would like Bobb to finish fighting the cancer before replacing his liver, but he's one of many on a waiting list, and the timing is largely out of their control. Recently McKittrick was at Stanford shuttling between appointments when a team of physicians tracked him down. They ushered him and Teckla into a room and informed them that a liver had become available. The chief transplant surgeon, Carlos Esquivel, then explained the various risks, including the possibility that Bobb could die on the operating table. The doctors said they needed a decision within two hours. Teckla broke into tears. Bobb stroked her hand, calmly questioned the doctors and finally said, ``Let's do it.'' He was told to return to the hospital later that afternoon for surgery. Teckla worried that he had rushed his decision, but Bobb said, ``I made a life-altering decision 40 years ago in 20 minutes, and I haven't regretted it.'' He was sitting in the living room of his house when the phone rang. A nurse told him the doctors had found the liver to be unsuitable. When he repeated the news, Teckla's knees buckled and she fainted. Bobb took the news in stride. ``He has incredibly tough skin,'' Barton says of his coach. ``It's a crisis situation, but he won't show a weakness.'' Barton lets his thought hang for a moment; it occurs that he might want to say a Jewish prayer right about now. ``Believe me,'' Barton says, ``I will.'' He won't be alone. ``When it comes to emotional strength, he's probably the toughest person I know,'' Seifert says of his former assistant. ``Teckla was in tears for two weeks,'' says Bobb. ``She hears cancer and immediately thinks, You're going to die. That's not the way I'm approaching it.'' McKittrick ``has forgotten more football than I know,'' Shanahan says, ``but what really stands out is his incredible work ethic.''

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in bidding farewell to Ambassador K. Erik Tygesen, who has served as Denmark's extraordinary envoy to the United States for the past five years. Ambassador Tygesen's outstanding efforts to promote the diplomatic relations between the United States and Denmark are a reflection of his exemplary devotion to democratic ideals, and we are immensely grateful for his commitment and integrity. He will be missed here in Washington. In July 1997 President Clinton traveled to Denmark, the first-ever visit of a United States President in office. The trip was an overwhelming success, due in large part to the preparations and planning of Ambassador Tygesen. This visit further strengthened the long and strong lasting ties between our two countries. In his speech to Her Majesty the Queen of Denmark, President Clinton said, ``The United States has had relations with Denmark longer than with any other country, and our nations have never been closer than today. On almost every issue we stand together, and on some of the most important issues we stand together almost alone. But America always knows it is in the right if Denmark is by our side.'' Ambassador Tygesen embodies these sentiments that President Clinton voiced. Consistent with a long Danish tradition of championing peace, Ambassador Tygesen was a platoon leader in the first United Nations peacekeeping force, UNEF, in Gaza from 1956 to 1957. He subsequently devoted his life to the diplomatic service. After holding numerous high-level positions in the Danish cabinet, Ambassador Tygesen was appointed Deputy Head of the Danish delegation to the United Nations' 11th Special Assembly on Economic Affairs in 1980, where his performance was so commendable that he shortly thereafter was appointed Ambassador to Brazil and then to Germany. In 1995 he was made Ambassador of the Kingdom of Denmark to the United States of America. In this last post, Ambassador Tygesen encouraged Denmark to join the United States as an active part of the international effort to counter the destabilizing effects of President Milosevic's ethnic cleansing agenda in the former Yugoslavia. Consequently, Denmark was the one of the largest per capita contributors to peacekeeping missions in Kosova, participating in the air campaign and providing troops and police as well as humanitarian aid and reconstruction assistance. Ambassador Tygesen also promoted Danish support of NATO expansion. At the Washington Summit in April 1999, Denmark welcomed Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to NATO. This generosity of spirit and global awareness were also evident as Ambassador Tygesen sought, both in Washington and in Copenhagen, to support further liberalization of transatlantic trade in the interest of both our countries. His efforts to contain and eliminate trade frictions and to devise an early-warning system so that both sides of the Atlantic might avoid such trade disputes in the future have strengthened cooperation between the United States and the European Union. Last year the Ambassador also secured Danish funds which made it possible to sign an agreement between the Danish Ministry of Culture and the government of the United States Virgin Islands (the former Danish West Indies). Denmark shares a rich common heritage with these islands, and through this agreement will transfer original archival material on the history of the Danish West Indies from the Danish National Archives in Copenhagen to the Unites States Virgin Islands. Ambassador Tygesen has been integral to promoting the continued good relations between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Denmark. He displays all the noble qualities of compassion, reasonableness and foresight which characterize his countrymen, and we in Washington shall miss him greatly.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the West African nation of Benin and its President, Mathieu Kerekou. This country's story is a remarkable one, and an encouraging one. Under President Kerekou's leadership in the 1970s and 1980s, Benin made the difficult transition from authoritarian rule to democracy. President Kerekou won the country's second free election in 1996, an election which our Department of State called ``generally free and fair''--strong praise for a country on this continent where democracy has suffered many setbacks in recent years. President Kerekou succeeded the former president in a peaceful transition of power. The State Department's 1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices notes that President Kerekou ``continued the civilian, democratic rule begun in the 1990-91 constitutional process.'' The report also notes that the government has generally respected the human rights of its citizens. The Constitutional Court has shown its independence of the government, and when the court recently ruled provisions of a decentralization law unconstitutional, the legislature and the President accepted this decision. Benin is a small country and a poor one, but the Kerekou government has taken positive steps to strengthen its economy through privatizing state-owned enterprises and deregulating the economy. Under President Kerekou's leadership, Benin has been peaceful and stable. Mr. Speaker, Benin has been willing to take courageous foreign policy decisions that run counter to generally accepted practice. The Government of Benin recently announced that it plans to open an embassy in Israel's capital city of Jerusalem. Benin becomes just the third country to establish an embassy in Israel's capital, after Costa Rica and El Salvador. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the time when the United States will join these three countries and move our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem as mandated by the Congress. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me paying tribute to the nation of Benin and its President, Mathieu Kerekou.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the American people are urgently waiting for the Congress to take meaningful action on gun safety control--and the American people are not patient on this issue, Mr. Speaker. The American people are not patient. Despite repeated requests from our Democratic colleagues in this body and repeated requests of the Democratic members of the conference committee on H.R. 1501, the Juvenile Justice legislation, we are still awaiting action by the Republican leadership and the Republican members of the conference. I strongly support the motion to instruct conferees that is being offered by my distinguished colleague and fellow Californian, Ms. Lofgren. Her motion instructs the conferees to hold its first substantive meeting within the next two weeks. As President Clinton has said: ``How many more people have to get killed before we do something?'' The Senate adopted gun safety measures that close loopholes on our gun laws. The American people are strongly supportive of the type of provisions that are under consideration in this legislation. Now is the time for the conference committee to bring legislation back to this House. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the will of the American people to be respected in the Congress of the United States, and it is time for us to tell the reprehensible representatives of the National Rifle Association that the will of the American people will prevail over the narrow special interests of groups like the NRA. The appalling attack on President Clinton last Sunday by Wayne LaPierre, Vice President of the National Rifle Association, only indicates how desperate that organization is to stop any meaningful effort to control gun violence and to enact needed gun safety legislation. Mr. Speaker, the San Francisco Chronicle published an excellent editorial today which puts this issue and the desperation of the National Rifle Association into context. I ask that the editorial from the Chronicle be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to read it. Mr. Speaker, I also urge my colleagues to support this motion being considered by the House today. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, March 15, 2000] National Rifle Association Takes Desperate New Tack National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre has crossed over into absurdity in his efforts to stymie gun control legislation this year. LaPierre's outrageous accusation that President Clinton is ``willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda'' can do nothing but backfire. Clinton can be accused of many things, but few would agree that he considers any number of fatalities acceptable. LaPierre and his crony, NRA President Charlton Heston, appear to have decided on a take-no-prisoners strategy against gun control even when their statements sound ludicrous. Thoughtful NRA members should be embarrassed by the tactics and may want to remember former President George Bush's action after the NRA sent out a fund-raising letter calling federal law enforcement officers ``jackbooted government thugs.'' Bush quit his NRA life membership in protest. If it chose, the NRA could be a serious player at discussions on gun control legislation. The proposal that Clinton is trying to push through Congress this year would require background checks of prospective buyers at gun shows, mandate child safety locks on handguns, prohibit imports of large ammunition clips and punish negligent adults if children commit violent crimes because of easy access to guns. But NRA arguments on the specifics are drowned out by its leadership's over-the-top rhetoric and knee-jerk opposition to any legislation that smacks of gun control. Contentions that the Clinton administration has not enforced current gun control laws, which may have some merit, also get lost because they appear to be a diversionary tactic to avoid talking about the details of proposed legislation. The wave of school killings over the past few years stunned a nation into supporting more restrictions on obtaining guns. Last year, about a month after the Columbine killings, the Senate approved the first gun control measure since Republicans took over Congress in 1994. Agreement later fell apart, but the NRA is all too aware that Congress has been moving in a direction the gun organization detests. Its latest tactics show a desperation and an apparent feeling that anything, no matter how outrageous, goes in an election year.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, at a meeting of the Asia Society yesterday, our outstanding Secretary of State, Madeleine K. Albright, delivered a thoughtful speech in anticipation of the Presidential visit to India and Bangladesh, with a brief stop in Pakistan. This visit is the first to India by an American president in 22 years and it is the longest presidential visit ever. This will also be the first visit by a U.S. President to Bangladesh. Secretary Albright's speech was a brilliant background analysis of United States relations and strategic interests in South Asia. With regard to India, she emphasized the good relations our nation has with India, and she said that our relations can and should be strengthened. At the same time, however, Secretary Albright stressed that nuclear proliferation is a critical issue for the United States, and in order for our relationship to achieve its rich possibilities India must take steps to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems. With regard to the brief visit to Pakistan, Secretary Albright emphasized: ``I want to leave no room for doubt. In no way is this decision [to stop in Pakistan] to embrace the military coup or government led by General Musharraf. And no one should interpret it as such.'' She said that the United States has important interests with Pakistan, particularly in controlling the spread of nuclear and missile technology and in dealing with international terrorism. In only one area do I find reason to disagree with our distinguished Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. In discussing Kashmir, she noted that her father served as a member of a United Nations mission dealing with that troubled territory. She said: ``He [my father] is now dead, and I am old, and yet still this tragic story goes on.'' Our Secretary of State is not old, Mr. Speaker, she has pursued with great vigor and energy her critical role as our nation's chief diplomat. We are fortunate to have as our Secretary of State a woman of such distinction and such vibrancy. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Secretary Albright's address to the Asia Society be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to give it the thoughtful and careful study that it deserves. Remarks to the Asia Society--Washington, D.C., March 14, 2000 Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I am indeed delighted to be here. Thank you very, very much, Ambassador Wisner, and to you as well to Marshall Bouton and the entire Asia Society. It's a great pleasure to be here. Ambassador Lodhi and Ambassador Gautam, it is a pleasure to have you here and other excellencies of the diplomatic corps; colleagues and friends from the worlds of scholarship and public policy, Capitol Hill and the press. I have to warn you: This is a long speech. It's a ``wonky'' speech, and it basically--this, I think, is a perfect audience for it, because I think that you all have spent a great deal of time on the subject. I also, as I look around the audience, I see today people who signed an open letter to the President on the trip, and I think that you will find that many of your very thoughtful comments are reflected in the framework that I'm going to put forward here. At least, I hope you do. I appreciate the chance to discuss the President's upcoming visit to South Asia. Our trip provides a rich opportunity to promote American interests in an area where a fifth of the world's people live, security risks are high, economic opportunities abound, and there is a potential for wide- ranging cooperation on global issues. As befits the diversity of the region, our goals are many. In Bangladesh, we will both affirm and advance our friendship with a young democracy that was born in strife, and is surmounting huge obstacles. During an extended visit to India, the President will seek to begin a new chapter in our relations with one of the world's leading countries and oldest civilizations. India is projected to pass China in size in the early decades of this century, and I can think of few greater gifts to the future than a strong and cooperative strategic relationship between India and the United States. Finally, in Pakistan, the President will make clear our support for an early return to democratic rule, as well as our ongoing friendship for the Pakistani people. In these areas and others, we are fortunate to have the support of America's South Asian communities. They are an amazing success story--and a remarkable resource. For the fruits of their hard work, generosity and genius are manifest here and on the subcontinent. And every day they help bind America and the region closer together. As the new century begins, our foreign policy priorities include building a healthy and growing world economy, halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, supporting democracy, and working with other nations to combat international terror, pollution, drug trafficking and disease. We cannot succeed in meeting these priorities without South Asia. The President's trip offers us the opportunity to make progress towards each, and to forge ties that will benefit America for many years to come. The first official stop on our schedule will be the first visit ever by an American president to Bangladesh. Although Bangladesh has a short history as an independent nation, it has already taken long strides to emerge from poverty and build an inclusive democracy. In the Muslim world and beyond, Bangladeshi democracy deserves recognition as a source of hope for its people and of inspiration to others. We also want to support the constructive role Bangladesh plays in the international community. For example, it is a top contributor of troops to United Nations peacekeeping missions, and it has embarked with energy and distinction on a two-year term on the UN Security Council. Bangladesh is also a valued partner on global issues. Last week it became the first South Asian country to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. And it is working to stamp out child labor in its garment export industry; preserve its tropical forests, and lift the lives of women and disadvantaged with a remarkable micro-lending program that has been emulated around the world. There is also a very practical economic dimension to this visit. As Bangladesh has moved to join the global economy, American investment there has risen thirty-fold in three years. And with the right policies in place, Bangladesh could make a quantum leap forward by exploiting its vast energy resources, particularly in natural gas. Regional corruption in this area--I'm sorry. Regional cooperation in this area-- Not good. We'll get to corruption. Regional cooperation in this area would benefit Bangladesh and all of South Asia. American companies can be the perfect partners to help seize such opportunities. America can be a strong partner for India, as well. And the President's visit to India will be the centerpiece of his trip. In fact, Bill Clinton's five-day visit to five cities will be the most extensive trip to that country ever by an American president. At the time of the last such visit, I was about to join the National Security Council in the Carter Administration. And let me state one truth at the outset. Twenty-two years is far too long an interval between presidential trips to India. For decades, the enormous potential of Indo-US relations went largely untapped. The main reason was an all- encompassing Cold War. As the world became bipolar, India chose its own path of non-alignment. The result, in the words of a former Indian Ambassador to Washington, was that Indo-US ties exhibited ``a pattern of misunderstanding, miscalculations, and missed opportunities.'' That legacy left a burden of history on both our nations that is only now lifting. Even after the Cold War's end, the United States and India were slow to explore in depth the many areas where our interests increasingly converge. We also failed to lay a fresh foundation for managing our differences. The hesitation was on both sides. In some quarters in India, there was a lingering suspicion of US intentions in world affairs. And on the American side, some could not or would not understand India's compulsions and aspirations. Today, however, this mindset of mutual distrust is beginning to change. And, in fact, I believe that both the United States and India are coming to realize that there was always something unnatural and regrettable about the estrangement of our two democracies. Nor is the democratic bond between us merely an ``intangible.'' To the contrary, the values and heritage we share are the bedrock for all our steps forward. And we have been a rich source of ideas and inspiration for one another. Mahatma Gandhi studied Thoreau and the New England Transcendentalists--who in turn were deeply indebted to ancient Indian philosophy. Martin Luther King, Jr. then looked to Gandhi's towering example of nonviolence. And the framers of India's Constitution looked to our own in developing their framework for a free society. We both understand that true democracy is never achieved; it is always a pursuit. Human rights concerns in India are still being addressed--particularly in the areas of trafficking in women and children, communal violence, and child labor. But for all our imperfections, the United States and India are the world's most visible messengers of the truth that secular, pluralist democracy not only can work, it does work. By almost any measure of diversity, India is a world unto itself: seventeen officially recognized languages and 22,000 dialects; every major world religion--including one of the largest Muslim populations on earth; an incredible collection of communities, creeds and cultures; and 600 million eligible voters in some 600,000 polling places--exercising the miracle of self-government. Considering the vast problems it inherited at independence, Indians have good reason to take pride in their country's survival as a democracy. And India has done more than survive--it has made remarkable progress. In half a century, the average life span in India has roughly doubled. In place of famine, a ``Green Revolution'' has brought surplus grain to export. And a social revolution is finally unlocking doors of economic and political opportunity for women and lower castes. Huge challenges remain, however. Illiteracy is high. HIV/ AIDS must be attacked with the same energy that has brought India to the verge of eradicating polio. And millions still cannot obtain clean water, make a telephone call, or afford even a bicycle for transportation. But for all that, it is clear that--particularly in recent years--India has been on a rising road toward a better life for its people. It is in this context that next week, the leaders of the world's largest and oldest democracies will meet. And we have a great deal of long-awaited business to discuss. One such area of business is business. The Indian economy was one of the great underreported success stories of the 1990s. By decade's end, the turn toward the free market that began in 1991 was yielding sustained growth rates of 6.5 percent per year. And the greatest growth has come in areas that bode well for India's future. In recent years, software exports have jumped 50 percent annually--with no end in sight. American companies from Apple and Texas Instruments to Oracle and Microsoft have come to India for its high ``tech'' and high skills. And while other countries beat a path to India's door, it continues to enrich the globe with talent. Indians make up 30 percent of software workers worldwide. This should come as no surprise, in light of the subcontinent's history and culture. The Indian civilization gave the world several key building blocks of modern mathematics. And today, India's pool of trained scientists and engineers is second in size only to our own. In terms of purchasing power parity, India already has the world's fourth largest economy. By any yardstick, its middle class is one of the largest on the planet. And its massive economic takeoff is widely projected to continue. In January, Treasury Secretary Summers told an Indian audience that a 10 percent annual growth rate is ``well within your grasp.'' At that rate, India's standard of living would quintuple in just 20 years--even accounting for population growth. Toward that end, Indian governments have undertaken new economic reforms. Late last year, India took steps to open up its insurance sector to foreign investors. We hope it will follow suit in telecommunications and other new sectors. India's economic reforms are a work in progress. The remaining hurdles include growth-choking deficiencies in transportation and infrastructure; remnants of the old license Raj; too much public borrowing; and poorly targeted subsidies. Changing all this will not be easy. But the overall trends are plainly in the right direction. This, of course, is good news for India. And as India's largest trade and investment partner, it is also good news for us. Our two-way trade and investment in India is projected to grow vastly over the next decade. Whatever its exact magnitude, the economic potential of enhanced Indo-American ties is clearly enormous. And we are determined to realize much more of this potential. Strengthening democracy is another goal we share with India. So I am delighted that Minister of External Affairs Jaswant Singh will join me and five other foreign ministers as co-sponsors of the Community of Democracies initiative in Warsaw this June. This is a splendid example of the kind of ambitious and yet practical cooperation that India and the United States are in a unique position to pursue. We also look forward to working, at both government and NGO levels, with a very active Indian presence at the 56th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. And during the upcoming visit, we will launch an Asian Center for Democratic Governance in Delhi. This independent forum will be jointly sponsored by the US National Endowment for Democracy and the Confederation of Indian Industries. We are also working with India to expand our cooperation in a broad range of other important areas, including science and technology, social development, and exchanges such as the Fulbright program. Clean energy is an area in which we are striving to strengthen our partnership and benefit our shared environment. Unless we act, India will suffer greatly from global climate change, and by acting together, we and India can also contribute greatly to solving this problem. And President Clinton's trip will underscore that in this high- tech era, India can both prosper in the global economy and protect the global environment. That brings me, at last, to security issues. The United States continues to seek universal adherence to the NPT. We believe the South Asian nuclear tests of May 1998 were a historic mistake. And UN Security Council Resolution 1172 makes it plain that the international community agrees with us. We recognize fully: Only the Indian government has the sovereign right to make decisions about what is necessary for the defense of India and its interests. The United States does not regard India's missiles or nuclear weapons as a direct threat to us. But we do regard proliferation-- anywhere--as our Number One security concern. And for this reason, we must accept that significant progress in this area is necessary, before India and the United States can realize fully the vast potential of our relationship. Deputy Secretary Talbott and Minister Singh have gone to unprecedented lengths to put our dialogue on these topics on a more productive footing. And the Cold War's end opened up new opportunities to work toward a world in which the risks and roles of nuclear weapons can be reduced, and ultimately eliminated. We and India agree that it would be tragic if actions now being taken led the world not toward seizing these opportunities, but instead toward new risks of nuclear war. We have not yet found a way to create sufficient common ground on these issues. But I am convinced that our relationship today has the strength and breadth to keep working through our differences and find a way forward. So we will continue to discuss how to pursue security requirements without contributing to a costly and destabilizing nuclear and missile arms race. Our goal is to ensure that people everywhere will be freed of such devastating dangers and economic burdens. We believe that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would advance India's security interests--as, by the way, it would advance our own. And that is why, yesterday, I appeared yesterday with General Shalikashvili to highlight the important role in the Administration's continuing efforts with the US Senate on the CTBT that General Shalikashvili will play. We likewise believe that steps to strengthen India's already-effective system of export controls would be in our common interests. So would a global treaty to ban the production of fissile material for weapons--and pending that, a multilateral moratorium. India has emphasized that its decisions are not taken with a narrow regional focus, and we accept that point. But India's decisions also have consequences beyond South Asia. Here, prudence and clarity in India's plans and doctrines could yield great benefits. For a pattern of steeply rising defense budgets in Asia would serve neither the continent's security interests nor its development needs. Such principles of restraint are consistent with statements India's own leaders have made. How India addresses all these issues will, of course, influence the decisions we make. But our goal is a qualitatively different and better relationship with India-- not a simple return to the status quo before the tests. Our ability to attain this goal will depend largely on what India does. And the limits on our ability to cooperate with India are a matter of US law, as well as our international obligations. And our approach to nonproliferation is global. We cannot abandon it simply because we desire an improved relationship. Any other stance would break faith with all the nations--from South Africa to South America to the former Soviet republics--who decisions to strengthen their own security and the cause of nonproliferation by joining the NPT. And it would give cover to states which, unlike India, might threaten us directly. We will persist in our efforts to reconcile, to the greatest extent possible, our nonproliferation concerns with India's appreciation of its security requirements. Our dialogue on these subjects will be continued during the President's trip, and beyond. One topic we will discuss in both India and Pakistan is the relationship between these two countries. Let me say a word about the President's decision to stop in Pakistan at the end of our trip. And on one key issue, I want to leave no room for doubt. In no way is this a decision to endorse the military coup or government led by General Musharraf. And no one should interpret it as such. We are going to Pakistan because the United States has interests there which are important--and urgent. Our interests include avoiding the threat of conflict in South Asia; fostering democracy in Pakistan; fighting terrorism; preventing proliferation; and doing what we can to help create an environment of regional peace and security; and reaching out to a people whose history is one of friendship with the United States. The President is not going to Pakistan to mediate the Kashmir dispute. We have made it clear he will not do that unless both sides ask. Last 4th of July, the President's ability to engage directly with the Pakistani Government played a key role in defusing a tense conflict in Kargil. For the President to maintain such lines of communication may be very important in any future crisis. Some of you know that, when I was a young girl, my father worked as a diplomat at the UN on the problem of Kashmir. He wrote a book whose first chapter contains the simple but eloquent statement, ``The history of Kashmir is a sad story.'' He is now dead, and I am old, and yet still this tragic story goes on. But today, the conflict over Kashmir has been fundamentally transformed. For nations must not attempt to change borders or zones of occupation through armed force. And now that they have exploded nuclear devices, India and Pakistan have all the more reason to avoid an armed conflict, and all the more reason to restart a discussion on ways to build confidence and prevent escalation. India and Pakistan today must find some way to move forward. The process is not one that the international community can prescribe for them. We only know that it will take courage--but not the courage of soldiers. And we can be sure of one more practical reality: Tangible steps must be taken to respect the Line of Control. For so long as this simple principle is violated, the people of Kashmir have no real hope of peace. Another vital US interest in Pakistan is countering terrorism. The terrorist camps next door in Afghanistan directly threaten American lives. Because of Pakistan's influence with its neighbor, this matter will be high on the President's agenda. General Musharraf has offered to go to Afghanistan himself to discuss concerns about terrorism. We hope to hear more from him about this. And we want to see steps to address the effects of terror on Pakistan's neighbors, notably India. Nothing would do more to bolster the entire world's confidence in Pakistan's government than to learn that its people will regain their ability to choose their leaders sooner rather than later. And few things did more to undermine the confidence than the recent order that judges take an oath of loyalty to the military, rather than to the constitution. In all these areas and others, we see opportunities not for mere gestures, but for real steps forward. For example, Pakistan's foreign minister has recently argued the advantages, from Pakistan's own standpoint, of early signature of the CTBT. Now, that would be the kind of coup for Pakistan--and I guarantee, the international community would rally around it. President Clinton will go to India, and also to Bangladesh and Pakistan, to strengthen America's bonds with a region that is growing in importance with each passing year. And in so doing, he will affirm on an official level what many in this room can testify to in their own lives. For the connections between America and South Asia are manifest. They may come in the form of a physician from Mumbai who spends part of her time each year in Los Angeles; or a businessman in Boston who is developing a new technology with a firm in Dhaka; or a teacher from Tennessee who is working with young people in Islamabad. In today's world, geography is no longer destiny. America and South Asia are distant, but we are linked in the opportunities we have, the threats we face, and the changes to which we must respond. President Clinton's historic visit offers the prospect of a welcome new chapter in our relations with India and her neighbors. But although that chapter may begin with a visit from the White House, it will be written by the people of all our countries. For the President's visit, I ask your support next week. For the larger task, I urge your active participation in the months and years to come. Thank you all very much for your attention.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege today to call to the attention of my colleagues in the Congress the extraordinary accomplishments of Mr. Robert ``Bat'' Batinovich of San Mateo, California. Bat brings the same extraordinary leadership qualities and generosity of spirit to his charitable contributions that he does to his entrepreneurial enterprises. A shining example in the business community of the possibilities for philanthropic contribution, Bat Batinovich has for years made quiet contributions to causes ranging from women's athletics to services for homeless families. This Saturday, March 18, 2000, the Catholic Charities of San Francisco will honor Mr. Batinovich with its annual Loaves and Fishes Award for outstanding service to the community. This award recognizes the distinguished charitable efforts of individuals and organizations, and Mr. Batinovich reflects perfectly the spirit of commitment and service that define the work of Catholic Charities. Robert Batinovich is Chairman and CEO of Glenborough Realty Trust, a San Mateo-based real estate investment trust. He is a self-made man whose drive has taken him from tuna-fishing on the high seas to chairing the California Public Utilities Commission during the energy crisis. His passion and vivacity have marked every step along the way with joie de vivre. As a leader, Mr. Batinovich has gained the respect and affection of our entire community. His reputation for honesty and tenaciousness is unassailable, but Bat's most admirable quality is his discernment that true success extends beyond the business arena and necessarily includes one's relationship to one's family, friends and community. I invite my colleagues to join me and the Catholic Charities of San Francisco in honoring the remarkable accomplishments of the benevolent Robert ``Bat'' Batinovich in business, in life and in our community.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago in Stockholm representatives of 40 countries--including the Prime Ministers of Israel, Germany and Austria, and the President of Poland--as well as Holocaust survivors and spiritual leaders met to focus attention on the legacy of the Holocaust. This three-day international conference was organized by the government of Sweden as part of an effort to raise awareness among young people about the genocide of six million Jews and two million others, including Roma (Gypsies) and homosexuals, under the Nazi German regime. All who participated in the conference spoke of the importance of remembering that most heinous tragedy and of fighting against anti- Semitism, racism and bigotry. In his address to the conference, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said: ``We must support each other in the teaching of humanity and civil courage, so that normal people shall never again, in the name of some criminal ideology, turn normal places into grim factories of execution.'' Mr. Speaker, one of the highlights of this conference was the address by Hungarian-born American journalist Kati Marton entitled ``Remembering Wallenberg.'' As she explained in her outstanding speech, the Swedish humanitarian Raoul Wallenberg was one of the true heroes during this blackest of chapters in the history of humankind. Against almost insurmountable odds, he went to Budapest at the height of the Nazi effort to extinguish the Jews of Hungary, and through courage, intelligence and incredible effort, he was instrumental in saving the lives of as many as one hundred thousand Jews. Mr. Speaker, Kati Marton is superbly qualified to provide this outstanding appraisal of Wallenberg. She was born in Hungary, and both of her parents were journalists who suffered the Nazi occupation and the Communist takeover that followed. She and her parents were able to escape to the West, and eventually she came to the United States. Kati is a journalist and author of the first rank. She currently serves as the president of the Committee to Protect Journalists, a nonpartisan nongovernmental organization dedicated to protecting journalists and press freedom throughout the world. She is also the author of Wallenberg: Missing Hero and Death in Jerusalem. Mr. Speaker, I submit the text of Kati Marton's Stockholm address ``Remembering Wallenberg'' to be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to give it thoughtful attention. Remembering Wallenberg I am immensely grateful for this chance to talk about Raoul Wallenberg. Fifty-five years after the Holocaust we are still learning things about that shameful chapter in history. The Swedish government's recent admission of its mistakes is both commendable and essential . . . Not only for the sake of historical truth--but to put present and future leaders on notice that they will be held accountable. Sweden did misjudge the character of the evil represented by Hitler . . . but this country also gave the world Raoul Wallenberg . . . one of the Holocaust's few genuine heroes. And today . . . thanks to Sweden . . . we are gathered here to learn not only from the misjudgements of the past terrible century . . . but from its extraordinary moments of humanity . . . If those terrible times are to remain real . . . and cautionary . . . to those who are lucky enough never to have experienced them . . . a great deal of the credit goes to conferences like this one . . . for which I thank the Swedish Government and the American Jewish Committee. The historians of the Century that has just ended have the responsibility to tell the story of Wallenberg so that the next generation can understand humanity's extraordinary power for both perversity and compassion. Our responsibility is to shape public memory . . . and ultimately to stand against evil by bearing witness. Since we are here in search of Historical Truth . . . I would like to say a few words about another Swede whose role in the Holocaust and its aftermath has for too long been forgotten or misunderstood . . . buried under rumor and misinformation: Count Folke Bernadotte. Bernadotte's assassination at the hands of Jewish extremists over half a century ago is a tragically prophetic tale . . . as we continue to search for peace in the Middle East. In many ways, Folke Bernadotte was not the right man for the role of the United Nations first Arab-Israeli mediator . . . not in the overheated emotional climate . . . and volatile military situation . . . which prevailed during that traumatic first year of Israel's life. But--whatever his personal shortcomings or the weakness of his peace effort . . . Folke Bernadotte was a good man who threw caution to the winds and acted out of humanity. In the '40s . . . as now . . . those qualities were in short supply. He deserved better than he got: death at the hands of extremists opposed to any negotiated settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Long before Bernadotte landed in Palestine, he had proved himself a skilled negotiator and committed humanitarian. He was responsible for the War's most unsung, most controversial, and most successful rescue effort inside Germany. Through many hours of hard nosed negotiations with the notorious Heinrich Himmler . . . Bernadotte extricated 21,000 prisoners . . . including 6,500 Jews . . . citizens of 20 different countries . . . bound for certain extermination . . . from the Nazi's grasp. In carrying out his rescue, Bernadotte became the first representative of a humanitarian organization from a neutral country to set foot in one of the Reich's death camps. Of course, 21,000 souls saved is a tiny number compared to the final death count . . . but it does mock such assertions as the one in the recent book, The Myth of Rescue, by Prof. William D. Rubinstein, ``that not one plan or proposal made anywhere in the democracies by either Jews or non-Jewish champions of the Jews after the Nazi The line between the core subject of our conference: the Holocaust and Bernadotte's assassination, is direct and clear. The Holocaust had taught Bernadotte's assassins the bitter lesson of self-reliance in an unforgiving world. Suspicious even of their own country's founding fathers, they believed they alone were fit to determine Israel's future. Israel's leaders--people like David Ben Gurion and Golda Meir . . . the fabled pioneers revered by so many other Jews--were dismissed by Bernadotte's killers as cowards and compromisers. Israelis today have chosen the pragmatic solution over the biblical one. Today, we can have an honest discussion of Bernadotte's tragic fate--and his very real contribution to the search for peace in the region. We don't use the world hero much any more . . . we tend to be skeptical about those to whom it is attached. . . . If ever there was a period with a desperate hero shortage it is the Holocaust . . . that chapter of our Century which has changed our view of man and his capacity for inhumanity to his fellow man. . . . There were so few heroes in that bleak period from 1941 until 1945. . . . Heroism is not simply enduring when you have no choice . . . as a prisoner does . . . or an inmate in a camp . . . that is courage . . . Heroism is of a different order . . . it is when you have a choice and you embrace danger for the sake of others. . . . that is what Raoul Wallenberg did . . . and that is why he is that rare breed: a genuine Hero. If Sweden made grave mistakes--so too did Washington during the Holocaust. Our leaders had known since 1942 that there were killing camps in Hitler's empire. . . . But Churchill and Roosevelt's only goal was to win the war. . . . They had been persuaded by the military that any large scale effort to save refugees from the Nazis killing camps would divert resources that should be channeled to the War effort. . . . There was also the ever-present poison of anti-Semitism, which still permeated the State Department . . . which, before the war, could have issued life-saving visas to hundreds of thousands of Jews. But, masquerading behind bureaucratic mumbo jumbo, American consular offices dragged their feet until it was too late, though Hitler made no secret of his plan to rid Germany of Jews . . . although at the outset he was willing to let German Jews leave, if they could find sanctuary. When America and the rest of the world was unwilling to take in more than a trickle it confirmed Hitler's view that the world really didn't give a damn about Jews anyway . . . so he proceeded to the Final Solution. Why did Wallenberg volunteer to walk into the jaws of the Kafkaesque nightmare of Budapest? He had seen the Nazi's brutality, so he wasn't naive about their capacity for inhumanity. He had been to Berlin . . . to Palestine, . . . had seen the Jewish refugees and heard their stories of terror. He thought he could help. He was young . . . 31, and brave, recklessly brave. He was in part American educated . . . the University of Michigan. . . . so he had a larger view of the world than most Europeans. But we run out of rational explanations for why this well born young man with everything to live for packed a backpack in the hellish summer of 1944 and set off for the country that sheltered the largest Jewish community left in Europe . . . Hungary. He packed a pistol . . . and he packed dollars . . . from American sources: the War Refugee Board which was FDR's creation . . . an The Jews of the city knew their relatives and friends in the provinces . . . a half a million of them in fact . . . had already taken their final train to Auschwitz. Adolf Eichmann had broken all his prior records for speed and efficiency in rounding up the Jews of the Hungarian countryside . . . including my grandparents. He had to work fast because by now even the most fanatic Nazi knew the War was lost. It would be just a matter of weeks . . . maybe months . . . until the combined force of the Red Army and the Allies brought Hitler to his knees. So the Jews of Budapest played a waiting game . . . and watched their city slowly turn into a Nazi garrison. They lived on rumors. Jews could no longer work, or take public transport, or sit on park benches. They could leave their homes only between 11 am and 5 pm. Many of them were hidden in the homes of Christian friends--waiting . . . for something. Raoul Wallenberg started his rescue mission on a small scale . . . giving Swedish passports first only to Hungarian Jews who had business dealings with Sweden . . . or Swedish relatives . . . a few hundred. Raoul was testing the waters. The passports seemed to impress the local Nazis. They kept their hands off these freshly minted Swedes. So Wallenberg got bolder . . . he started printing his own passports . . . which bore the Swedish royal emblem-- thousands of them. And as word spread around the terrorized city that they were available, lines of Jews twisted around the Swedish embassy in Buda waiting for the magic passports. Those holding them didn't have to wear the yellow star . . . and were promised repatriation to Sweden. It was a young man's bluff . . . but in the atmosphere of near total anarchy which prevailed in this twilight time . . . the bluff seemed to be working. With the dollars he was receiving from American Jewish organizations and the U.S. Government, he rented and even bought houses around the city. He declared them diplomatic property . . . flew the yellow and blue flag of Sweden . . . making them technically off limits to the legalistic-minded Germans. By the end of the War 30,000 Hungarian Jews lived in these safe houses. Wallenberg played for time that summer . . . for the Russians were within earshot of the city . . . and the Allies were making their way to Berlin. He wrote his mother, ``I'll try to be home a few days before the Russians arrive in Budapest . . .'' Like everybody else, he assumed the Russians would be better than the Nazis. He did not imagine that the Russian liberation would turn into an Occupation. In October 1944, Hungry's ruler, Regent Horthy, tried to bolt from Hitler's grip and declare Hungary's neutrality. Horthy was captured and replaced by a thug from Hungary's indigenous fascists, the Arrow Cross-- a man completely loyal to Hitler and ready to resolve the festering problem of what to do with Budapest's resilient Jews. This was Wallenberg's real testing . . . now he was a man possessed . . . there was so little time. ``These are extraordinary and tense times,'' he wrote his mother, ``but we are struggling, which is the main thing. I am sitting by candelight with a dozen people around me . . . each with a request. I don't know who to deal with first. The days and nights are so filled with work . . .'' The city was in total panic now as the Arrow Cross broke into homes looking for Jews and then marched them to the edge of the frozen Danube to face firing squads . . . or line them up to die on the forced march to the German border. Wallenberg was at his most resourceful . . . and most frenetic. He befriended the pretty Austrian wife of the Hungarian Foreign Minister and used that relationship to wring concessions from the Hungarian Nazis. He followed the endless columns of miserable humanity marching in rain and sleet the 120 miles to the border. When he could do nothing more he thrust blankets and food at them. But he always tried to pull people from the line. Sometimes he saved dozens this way, or, on a bad day, only one or two. Each life was sacred to him. Nearly one hundred thousand Jews were left in the city. Wallenberg even arranged to meet the Jews' executioner, to attempt to reason with him--Eichmann. ``Leave now, while you can'', Wallenberg urged Eichmann. Eichmann shook his head. ``Budapest will be held as if it were Berlin.'' Eichmann tried to have Wallenberg killed. A traffic ``accident'' was arranged but Wallenberg was not in his car. The siege of Budapest . . . one of the War's bloodiest struggles . . . began in December 1944 and turned the entire city into a battleground. Under the Allies' bombs the City was starving to death . . . living in cellars and praying for the Russians to arrive. The Nazis now rounded up 60,000 Jews who were not sheltered in Wallenberg's safe houses and forced them into a ghetto in the heart of Pest . . . living under conditions of far greater misery than anyone else in the hellish city. Wallenberg, who always put things in writing (he had post War justice in mind), drew up sort of a contract guaranteeing the safety of the Jews in the ghetto and got an SS General to sign it. When the Arrow Cross men came to start the slaughter, the General blocked their way. Wallenberg had persuaded him that he would personally charge him with genocide before the War Crimes Tribunal that Churchill and Roosevelt had avowed would be convened after the war. Early in January, the starving, ravaged city was at last ``liberated''. The Russians looted, pillaged and raped their way across the city . . . unleashing a new brand of terror. Everywhere the Russian soldiers turned there were reminders of the Swede. Who was this one man rescue squad? The fact that more Jews had survived the Hungarian Holocaust than any other was largely the result of his courage. His passports were scattered throughout the city, stories of his exploits were told by survivors. The Russians came with their own plans for the city and the country. They were not just passing through . . . they were going to construct a Communist State, ruled by a single party, controlled by Moscow . . . it was the end of even the modicum of freedom the Hungarians had known before the War. But that was all carefully kept from the exhausted people . . . including Raoul Wallenberg. He should have at this point stayed underground--hidden like his fellow diplomats until the situation calmed down. But that was not Wallenberg's way. He had survived six months of savage Nazi brutality. He had begun to believe in his own immortality. He had plans for rebuilding the Jewish community of Budapest. He could not now abandon the people he had just saved. So, in a supreme act of courage and recklessness, Wallenberg went looking for the Russian High Command. He found them . . . and at that point his good fortune ran out. His reward for saving up to one hundred thousand lives was not the warm homecoming he had dreamed of. In January 1945 Wallenberg began his long journey into the Soviet Gulag. He never returned. His precise odyssey is a subject to some speculation and some dispute. Some things regarding his fate are indisputable. He was taken to the Lubyanka . . . the dreaded hell hole that is the KGB's headquarters in Moscow. Wallenberg was accused of being a spy . . . the catchall crime in the paranoid Stalinist state. The Soviets claimed he died of a heart attack two years later. But they never produced a body or a death certificate . . . In my research I interviewed former Gulag inmates who swore Wallenberg was alive through the Fifties, Sixties and even Seventies. The trail has gone cold in the last decade . . . and no one can wish this man such a long ordeal at the hands of his captors. The injustice of this story is almost too much to bear . . . For Raoul Wallenberg had stood up to the two greatest evils of our Century . . . the Nazis and the Communists. He proved that one man acting fearlessly and with great imagination could make the brutes back off. In a way, Wallenberg's story is a terrible reminder of the world's cowardice. How many people, how many countries, pleaded that there was nothing to be done. Hitler had power and numbers on his side. Wallenberg made liars of them all. After the last few years of intimate contact with the savage ethnic wars of the Balkans . . . from Bosnia to Kosovo . . . to Rwanda . . . I have seen how quickly demagogues . . . from Hitler to Milosevic . . . can fan the flames of nationalism and hatred among their people . . . turning former neighbors into murderous enemies. I hear so often in my prosperous, privileged country the question raised, ``Why should we get involved in other's problems? Why should we risk our lives to stop genocidal warfare in another country, another continent?'' I have a single word answer to those who say, ``Let them take care of themselves. There is nothing to be done. It is inevitable.'' My answer is: Wallenberg.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge my colleagues to take notice of the work of a talented Danish scholar, Professor Helle Porsdam of Denmark's Odense University. Dr. Porsdam's book, Legally Speaking: Contemporary American Culture and the Law, which was recently published by the University of Massachusetts Press, offers evidence of her extraordinary perceptiveness in her analysis of American culture. In Legally Speaking, Dr. Porsdam discusses the social impact of the law in the United States. Whereas many European and Asian nations find symbols of their national identity in royalty or an established church, Americans look to an institution far more consistent with our egalitarian roots: our system of justice. Despite our frequent frustrations with the legal profession--ambulance-chasing lawyers, legal ``sharks,'' frivolous lawsuits, the O.J. Simpson trial--the law epitomizes our most cherished civil ideals of fairness and equality. When a citizen is wronged, we look to the courts to make things right. When a crime is committed, the courts offer our sole vehicle for judgment and punishment. When our rights are violated, our courts can restore them. For this reason, Dr. Porsdam contends, the law serves more than just a functional purpose for the American people: it is a ``civil religion'' in which we place a particular kind of faith. The courts arbitrate more than just lawsuits and criminal cases; they pass judgment on our hopes and dreams as well. Dr. Porsdam's book analyzes America's moral investment in the legal system, and it further demonstrates how this facet of our national identity has permeated our culture. From The People's Court to L.A. Law, from Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities to Scott Turow's Presumed Innocent, the evidence of our society's attraction to judicial institutions is overwhelming. Dr. Porsdam carefully and thoughtfully explores the connections between the allure of the law and our faith in it. The perceptiveness of Dr. Porsdam in Legally Speaking has earned the endorsement of scholars across our country. Lewis D. Sargentich of Harvard Law School noted that the book is ``full of valuable insight.'' Her ``emphasis on the symbolic, unifying, aspirational side of law in American life, and her showing of this aspect of law through a close look at a series of contemporary `cultural texts,' combine to produce a unique scholarly contribution.'' Maxwell H. Bloomfield, the author of American Lawyers in a Changing Society, was equally effusive, praising Dr. Porsdam's work as ``an innovative and engaging study exploring the pervasive influence of law in the shaping of contemporary American culture. It is a strikingly original piece of work for which no comparable models exist.'' Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with these distinguished scholars. I urge my colleagues to join me in reading Legally Speaking and in appreciating the brilliant observations of Dr. Helle Porsdam.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, with the support of 30 of our colleagues-- including both Republicans and Democrats--I introduced House Concurrent Resolution 259, a bill decrying human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity. I did this, Mr. Speaker, because I believe very strongly that we in the Congress must send a strong message that--no matter what any of our colleague's views may be on the question of the lifestyle of gays and lesbians--that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people must be treated with dignity and respect, not with hatred and violence. All around the world, Mr. Speaker, unacceptable violations of human rights have taken place against individuals solely on the basis of their real or perceived sexual orientation. These ongoing persecutions against gay people include arbitrary arrests, rape, torture, imprisonment, extortion, and even execution. The scope of these humans rights violations is staggering, and for the victims there are few avenues for relief. Mr. Speaker, some states create an atmosphere of impunity for rapists and murderers by failing to prosecute or investigate violence targeted at individuals because of their sexual orientation. These abuses are not only sanctioned by some states, often, they are perpetrated by agents of the state. Mr. Speaker, in Afghanistan, men convicted of sodomy by Taliban Shari'a courts are placed next to standing walls by Taliban officials and subsequently executed as the walls are toppled upon them, and they are buried under the rubble. Police in countries such as Turkey, Albania, and Russia, among others, routinely commit human rights abuses such as extortion, entrapment, and even physical assaults. In Brazil, a lesbian couple was tortured and sexually assaulted by civil police. Despite the existence of a medical report and eye-witness testimony, their case remains unprosecuted. Many of us in the Congress protested when, in Zimbabwe, members of ``Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe'' were threatened and brutally assaulted for forming an organization to advocate for social and political rights. In Uganda, the president ordered police to arrest all homosexuals, and the punishment for conviction of homosexual activity is life in prison. Mr. Speaker, around the world, individuals are targeted and their basic human rights are denied because of their sexual orientation. The number and frequency of such grievous crimes against individuals cannot be ignored. Violence against individuals for their real, or perceived, sexual orientation violates the most basic human rights this Congress has worked to protect and defend. H. Con. Res. 259 puts the United States on record against such horrible human rights violations. As a civilized country, we must speak out against and condemn these crimes. Our resolution notes the violence against gay people in countries as wide ranging as Saudi Arabia, Mexico, China, El Salvador, and other countries. By calling attention to this unprovoked and indefensible violence, this resolution will broaden awareness of human rights violations based on sexual orientation. H. Con. Res. 259 reaffirms that human rights norms defined in international conventions include protection from violence and abuse on the basis of sexual identity, but it does not seek to establish a special category of human rights related to sexual orientation or gender identity. Furthermore it commends relevant governmental and non- governmental organizations (such as Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission) for documenting the ongoing abuse of human rights on the basis of sexual orientation. Our resolution condemns all human rights violations based on sexual orientation and recognizes that such violations should be equally punished, without discrimination. This legislation is endorsed by a broad coalition of international human rights groups, gay rights groups, and faith-based organizations, among others. They include: Amnesty International, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Watch, National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, Human Rights Campaign, Log-Cabin Republicans, Liberty Education Fund, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, Equal Partners in Faith, the United Church of Christ, the National Organization of Women (NOW), NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Anti-Defamation League. Mr. Speaker, the protection of gender identity is not a special right or privilege, but it should be fully acknowledged in international human rights norms. I ask that my colleagues join with me in wholeheartedly embracing and supporting basic human rights for all people, no matter what their sexual orientation might be. It is the only decent thing to do. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the text of H. Con. Res. 259 be included in the Record. House Concurrent Resolution 259 Expressing the concern of Congress regarding human rights violations against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals around the world. Whereas treaties, conventions, and declarations to which the United States are a party address government obligations to combat human rights violations, and the overall goals and standards of these treaties, conventions, and declarations in promoting human rights of all individuals have been found to be consistent with, and in support of, the aspirations of the United States at home and globally, as well as consistent with the Constitution of the United States; Whereas articles 3 and 5 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 6 and 7 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, guarantee all individuals the right to life, liberty, and security of person, and guarantee that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; Whereas the fundamental human right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life is violated when those convicted of homosexual acts in Afghanistan are sentenced to be executed and are crushed by having walls toppled over them, and there remain a number of other countries around the world that call for the possible execution of those convicted of homosexual acts, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Mauritania, and Iran; Whereas the fundamental right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is violated when gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered individuals are subjected to severe beatings while in police custody in Turkey and Albania, and individuals in these groups are also routinely the victims of human rights abuses, such as extortion, entrapment, physical assaults, and rape, committed by the police in Mexico, Argentina, and Russia, among other countries; Whereas a number of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals are targeted and tortured or killed by paramilitary groups in Colombia and El Salvador, which operate in collusion with the military, police, and other government officials; Whereas articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 14, and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantee all individuals freedom from arbitrary discrimination and equal protection before the law; Whereas in many countries arbitrary detention or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or conditions in detention directly result from the application of penal laws criminalizing same sex behavior between consenting adults, such as a 5-year sentence for private same sex behavior between consenting adults in Romania, and some of those individuals who have been convicted in Romania report torture, including rape, in prison, and all are unable to seek redress for abuses in detention; Whereas in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia the sentence for same sex behavior between consenting adults includes ``flogging'' and in Singapore and Uganda the sentence for same sex behavior between consenting adults can extend to life in prison; Whereas many governments, on the basis of vague laws, may target and persecute lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals: in the People's Republic of China individuals in these groups are imprisoned under laws against ``hooliganism'', in Argentina, individuals in these groups are imprisoned under the laws against ``vagrants and crooks'', and the vagueness of these laws makes it difficult to monitor governmental persecution; Whereas articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantee all individuals freedom of expression and freedom of association; Whereas the fundamental rights of freedom of expression and association are violated when governments deny the right of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals to form organizations or advocate for rights, such as in Zimbabwe where members of Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ) have been threatened and brutally assaulted; Whereas in some countries agents of the government are directing or are complicitous in abuses committed on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and investigations and prosecution of those agents for violations often do not occur; Whereas due to failure by governments to investigate and prosecute human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, private individuals feel encouraged to violently attack lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals with impunity, contributing to the atmosphere of fear and intimidation; Whereas lesbians and bisexual women who suffer human rights violations are often abused because of their sexual orientation while their gender often incites, compounds, and aggravates this abuse, and, moreover, since their gender is not recognized as a factor, their abuse often goes unrecorded; Whereas violations of internationally recognized human rights norms are to be considered crimes regardless of the status of the victims and are to be punished without discrimination; Whereas fundamental access to legal protection from violations of internationally recognized human rights norms is often unavailable to the victims; Whereas lesbians and bisexual women face additional obstacles in these countries when seeking assistance from police, judges, and other officials due to pervasive gender bias; Whereas the preceding clauses constitute only a few examples of the violations suffered by lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered individuals, the full range and extent of such violations are not known because governments create an atmosphere of immunity for those perpetrating such human rights violations and prevent victims from seeking effective protection and just redress and thus their suffering remains undocumented and unremedied; and Whereas many nongovernmental human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, as well as the United States Department of State and the United Nations, have documented, and are continuing to document, the ongoing violations of the human rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress-- (1) condemns all violations of internationally recognized human rights norms based on the real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of an individual, and commends nongovernmental human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, as well as the United States Department of State and the United Nations, for documenting the ongoing abuse of human rights on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; and (2)(A) recognizes that human rights violations abroad based on sexual orientation and gender identity should be equally punished without discrimination and equally classified as crimes, regardless of the status of the victims and that such violations should be given the same consideration and concern as human rights violations based on other grounds in the formulation of policies to protect and promote human rights globally; and (B) further recognizes that the protection of sexual orientation and gender identity is not a special category of human rights, but it is fully embedded in the overall human rights norms defined in international conventions.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. Con. Res. 19 congratulating the Republic of Lithuania on the tenth anniversary of the reestablishment of its independence from the rule of the former Soviet Union. It is most appropriate that we are considering this resolution today, Mr. Speaker, because we have with us the most distinguished Speaker of the Lithuanian Parliament, Vytautas Landsbergis, who has played such a pivotal role in the renewal of the independence and sovereignty of Lithuania some ten years ago and who previously served as the President of Lithuania. Mr. Speaker, I remember meeting with Speaker Landsbergis on a visit to Lithuania over ten years ago as the first stirrings of renewed independence were beginning to quicken life there. On that occasion, Speaker Landsbergis was a prominent musicologist and had not yet begun his political career. We walked together into one of Vilnius' outstanding Churches in order to get beyond earshot of the Soviet KGB officials who were directed to follow us. As we sat in one of the pews, we discussed his vision of the reestablishment of a sovereign and independent Lithuania. At that time, his vision appeared beyond any hope. Today, Mr. Speaker, we are celebrating the tenth anniversary of Lithuania's independence. I had the opportunity to visit Lithuania just two months ago, Mr. Speaker, where I again had the opportunity to see the progress that has come after a decade of freedom. Lithuania's extraordinary progress during the past decade should serve as a model for all young democracies. Its leaders and its people have shown a commitment to free markets, civil liberties, and fair and open government as they have worked with such devotion to build their great nation. Lithuania stands today as a respected member of the international community and one of America's strongest allies. It is my sincere hope that, sooner rather than later, Lithuania's extraordinary achievements will be recognized in the form of a well-deserved invitation to join the NATO. Mr. Speaker, there is one matter of particular importance for which I would like to praise Speaker Landsbergis and the members of the Parliament (Seimas). Last month, by a vote of 54 to 6 the Seimas adopted amendments to the Lithuanian legal code which permit the conduct of war crimes trials in absentia if the accused is unable to be present for the trial because of medical reasons. This action will enable the Government of Lithuania to seek justice against some of the most notorious perpetrators of atrocities alive today. This legislation, which was drafted by my friend Dr. Emanuelis Zingeris, the Chairman of the Seimas' Human Rights Committee, states that if a person charged with genocide ``cannot for reasons of his physical condition, according to the findings of experts, be present at the place of the hearing, the defendant shall be provided technical facilities at the place where he is staying to directly take part in the hearing by giving evidence to the court, putting questions to other participants of the hearing and taking part in the proceedings.'' This reform will allow defendants in war crimes trials the right to participate in their own defense, but it also will permit the victims of these horrendous crimes against humanity to see that justice is done. As a survivor of the Holocaust and as the Chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, I applaud the Seimas and its leaders for their action, for reaffirming so strongly the commitment of the Lithuanian Government to justice. I hope--and expect--that this initiative will allow the cold-blooded killers who were responsible for the crimes of the Holocaust to be held accountable for their crimes. Genocide must never be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, in 1941 Fruma Kaplan was only six years old when she and her mother, Gitta, were arrested by Lithuanian Security Police (Saugumas) in the capital city of Vilnius. Fruma's crime? She was born Jewish, an unpardonable sin in Nazi-occupied Lithuania. On December 22 of that year, Fruma and her mother were taken to the woods of Paneriai outside of Vilnius, stripped down to their underwear, lined up at the edge of pits, and viciously gunned down. Fruma and Gitta Kaplan did not face their horrible fate along. Prior to 1941, Vilnius was home to one of the most vibrant Jewish communities in Europe. It was called the ``Jerusalem of the North.'' Artists, scholars, philosophers, and religious leaders all lived there, men and women renowned for their intellectual and cultural talents. After the Nazi invasion, they were slaughtered--55,000 of Vilnius' 60,000 Jews perished during World War II. The death warrants for Gitta and little Fruma were signed by Aleksandras Lileikis, the Chief of the Lithuanian Security Police for Vilnius Province. He supervised the slaughter of Vilnius' Jewish community with precision and zeal, sending Jews to Paneriai regardless of age and infirmity. The Kaplan documents make up only a small portion of the overwhelming evidence which establishes Lileikis' guilt. Our own Department of Justice calls this evidence in the Lileikis case a ``shockingly complete paper trail.'' Lileikis and his deputy, Kazys Gimzauskas, escaped Lithuania and came to the United States after World War II. They lived quite lives, Lileikis in Massachusetts and Gimzauskas in Florida, evading the consequences of their crimes. It wasn't until this past decade--after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the opening of archives and other sources of information not available until that point--that the U.S. Department of Justice was able to accumulate the evidence which established the legal basis for stripping U.S. citizenship from these two individuals, who covered up their horrendous crimes. They were deported from the United States and ended up back in the newly independent Lithuania. Since their return to Lithuania, Lileikis and Gimzauskas classified their wartime activities as the deeds of ``Lithuanian patriots,'' slandering the legacy of the untold thousands of courageous Lithuanians who fought to defend their national identity against Soviet might. Even so, these shameless men were never brought to trial, as their claims of medical and age-related infirmities stalled court proceedings indefinitely. The legal amendments passed by the Seimas promise to alter this status, because the Prosecutor-General of Lithuania can now initiate trials for Lileikis and Gimzauskas without further delay. Lileikis and Gimzauskas are not alone. Several other Nazis have been denaturalized and deported by the U.S. Department of Justice, and the memory of the Holocaust demands that they be brought to justice as soon as possible. It is imperative that the Lithuanian Government send a firm and principled message that the murder of 240,000 of its Jewish citizens in the Holocaust will never be forgotten, not in this generation or in any generation to come. It is my hope that Lithuania will soon demonstrate this commitment by opening trials against Lileikis, Gimazuskas, and other Lithuanians who participated in Nazi atrocities. Mr. Speaker, I applaud recent statements by President Valdas Adamkus, Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius, and Speaker Landsbergis in support of the immediate prosecution of Nazi war criminals. As the Prime Minister eloquently noted at the January Holocaust conference in Stockholm, pursuing war criminals is ``a moral duty that must be fulfilled in the 21st century as well,'' and that ``forgiving and forgetting [the culprits] is out of the question.'' I could not agree more strongly with this sentiment. The prosecution of Nazi war criminals will complement and strengthen the efforts of the question.'' I could not agree more strongly with this sentiment. The prosecution of Nazi war criminals will complement and strengthen the efforts of the Lithuanian Government to promote Holocaust education. The Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Committed during the Nazi and Soviet Occupation of Lithuania, formed in 1998 and ably co-chaired by Dr. Zingeris, promises a thorough study of ``the role of Lithuanians and others in the local population as perpetrators and/or collaborators in the Holocaust.'' The most vital responsibility of the Commission is clearly stated in its mission statement: ``Support for the preparation of educational materials and curricula for school students at all levels, to promote study, discussion and understanding of Lithuanian history during the Nazi and Soviet occupations.'' Mr. Speaker, the true measure of the Commission's success rests in its ability to convey its findings to the children and grandchildren of today's Lithuanians. I am hopeful that it will achieve this goal. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the changes that have taken place in Lithuania over the past decade. As I mentioned earlier, I had the opportunity this past January to visit Vilnius and see first-hand the changes. While there, I participated in the Lithuanian opening of ``The Last Days,'' a documentary produced by Steven Spielberg and the Shoah Foundation about the experiences of five Hungarian survivors of the Holocaust. I was one of those five survivors, Mr. Speaker. As I walked through the neighborhood formerly occupied by the Jewish Ghetto, I was reminded of a part of Lithuanian heritage that can never be replaced-- the talents and gifts of a quarter million murdered citizens and their unborn descendants. The loss overwhelmed me. Later that evening, at the movie premiere, I was joined in my emotion by President Adamkus, Prime Minister Kubilius, Speaker Landsbergis, and a host of other prominent Lithuanian leaders. They attended as representatives of modern Lithuania--a nation strengthened by perseverance, emboldened by freedom, and sensitive to the consequences of human rights denied. It is a nation that, I am confident, will continue to learn from the lessons of its past and will use them to shape its future. The passage of the amendments to allow war criminals to be tried in absentia, and the prospect that the cases of Aleksandras Lileikis and other Nazi murderers will soon move forward, further strengthens my faith in this conviction. Mr. Speaker, it is in this spirit that I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. Con. Res. 19. The accomplishments of the Lithuanian people during the past decades are impressive, but they pale only in comparison to the promise of this great nation in the years to come. General Leave

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last December President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan was in Washington for the annual meeting of the U.S.- Kazakhstan Joint Commission. The purpose of these meetings, which are held alternately in the United States and Kazakhstan, is to promote political and economic cooperation between our two countries. The United States side regularly presses the government of Kazakhstan to improve its human rights record and to undertake much-needed political and economic reform. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that in December U.S. officials pressed the Kazakh participants because of serious American concerns about the sham parliamentary elections which were held last October, increased corruption, and an increase in abusive action taken against opponents of President Nazarbayev's increasingly repressive government. Prior to last December's meeting and in an apparent move to blunt the expected pressure from the United States, President Nazarbayev issued a statement on November 4 saying that he was ready to cooperate with the political opposition and that he would welcome the return to Kazakhstan of former Prime Minister Akezhan Kazhegeldin, the exiled leader of the principal opposition party. On November 19, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kazhegeldin responded to President Nazarbayev by calling for a ``national dialogue'' to examine ways to advance democracy, economic development and national reconciliation in Kazakhstan. Similar national dialogues have met with success in Poland, South Africa, and Nicaragua. Mr. Kazhegeldin pointed out that convening a national dialogue would be an ideal way to initiate cooperation between the opposition and the government. Unfortunately, President Nazarbayev has reacted with stony silence to Mr. Kazhegeldin's proposal. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is not the first occasion when Mr. Nazarbayev has reneged on his promises or taken actions that undermine democracy and economic reform in Kazakhstan. He has reneged on a pledge he made in November to ship oil through the proposed Baku- Ceyhan pipeline. He continues to refuse to settle investment disputes with foreign companies that have lost millions of dollars because the government failed to honor its commitments. He arranged to have a kangaroo court convict an opposition leader for having the temerity to criticize Mr. Nazarbayev's government. Even more troubling and more threatening to our national security, an investigation and trial in Kazakhstan have failed to find anyone responsible for the delivery last year of 40 MIG fighter aircraft from Kazakhstan to North Korea. Mr. Speaker, the Administration must stop turning the other cheek every time Mr. Nazarbayev commits another outrage. The cause of freedom, democracy, and economic reform will continue to suffer in Kazakhstan unless the Administration strongly supports the national dialogue along the lines proposed by Mr. Kazhegeldin and takes action to press the government of Mr. Nazarbayev to stand by its commitments. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Administration should also insist that the government of Kazakhstan make a minimum of one hour per week available for use by the opposition. In a country where the government still controls the media, this is a minimum for democracy to have any hope at all to develop along democratic lines. We also ought to insist that the democratic opposition be permitted be provided a printing press to replace those that have been confiscated by the government. Mr. Speaker, the shocking lack of democracy in Kazakhstan and deliberate government actions and policies that have restricted political and economic reform are a matter of great importance to the United States. It is essential that the Administration press Mr. Nazarbayev to take remedial steps quickly.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, in a few days, we in this House will be voting on a resolution I introduced concerning the new government of Austria. Since the leader of this party, which is the Austrian government, the racist, xenophobic, neo-Nazi party has now resigned, it may be useful to ask why did he do so. He did not do so because he does not want to be part of the unpleasant political decisions that will have to be taken in Austria, tax increases, cutbacks on spending, layoffs of large numbers of government employees, but he is still the top man of this racist, xenophobic political party. One of his principal allies, Deputy Speaker of Parliament Prinzhorn, yesterday said the following about his resignation: ``It is not a resignation. He is a provincial governor and remains our strong man. It is a step backwards which is necessary in order to make two solid steps forward.'' I am urging all of my colleagues who have not yet cosponsored this resolution to come on board. We cannot allow the new Europe to have governments in which neofascist parties play a key role. The European Union has expressed itself; it is time we do so.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the legislation which we are considering today has little to do with helping struggling married couples and a great deal to do with politics. For years now, we have been subjected to partisan calls to deal with the so-called ``marriage tax penalty.'' We have heard stories about couples who have considered divorce, or even been divorced, because they had a tax burden that was so inequitable. I don't know about my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but most people that I know do not make the decision whether to enter into--or not enter into--marriage vows simply because of the tax implications of marriage. Matrimony has many consequences, but tax consequences are probably not the major concern. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there has been very little cool thoughtful consideration of the policies that we are considering here today. It is abundantly clear that the version of the legislation supported by our colleagues on the other side of aisle has much to do with an agenda to benefit the wealthy and little to do with making our tax system fairer for married couples. Approximately half of the tax benefits this legislation provides will go to tax filers that currently pay NO marriage penalty, and the bulk of the benefits will go to the top quarter of income earners. The Democratic alternative being presented by our colleague, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel, provides more genuine tax relief for working families who do pay a ``marriage tax penalty.'' I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel substitute. Mr. Speaker, The Washington Post (June 16, 1998) published an excellent article by Albert B. Crenshaw entitled ``Congress Tackles Marriage Tax Penalty: Experts Doubt That Debate will Yield Lasting Solution to Perennial Inequity.'' That article was particularly insightful on this complex issue. I am submitting the article for the Record at this point, and I urge my colleagues to read it. This careful and thoughtful analysis provides a much-needed counterpoint. [From the Washington Post, June 16, 1998] Congress Tackles Marriage Tax Penalty--Experts Doubt That Debate Will Yield Lasting Solution to Perennial Inequity (By Albert B. Crenshaw) As House Republicans rally around a proposal to eliminate the tax code's ``marriage penalty,'' some experts are skeptical that this latest round of debate on a long- discussed issue will lead to a lasting solution. The penalty, which causes some married couples to pay higher income taxes than they would as single people, has been a problem for as long as there has been a federal income tax. Over the years it has sparked repeated, and largely unsuccessful, efforts by Congress to craft a solution equitable to both married couples and singles. The repeated failure of these efforts has led some experts to say it's impossible to create a tax law that would cause all married couples with the same income to pay the same tax, that would treat taxpayers the same regardless of their marital status and that would at the same time would remain progressive. The key element that leads to the marriage penalty is the progressive nature of the nation's tax code. As income rises, it is taxed at higher rates, also known as brackets. When two people marry, their income is added together, so instead of, say, two singles in the 15 percent bracket, they become a married couple partly in the 15 percent bracket and partly in the 28 percent bracket. For example, a single man earning $25,000 annually and a single woman earning $25,000 would each be in the 15 percent bracket. If they marry, however, their annual income becomes $50,000 and some of it is taxed at 28 percent. For married couples filing jointly, that higher bracket starts at $42,350. While the tax code penalizes married couples with similar incomes, it benefits couples in which one spouse earns most or all of the income. For example, a single woman earning $50,000 annually is taxed at the 28 percent rate for slightly less than half her income, while the rest is taxed at 15 percent. If she marries a man with no income, $42,350 of her income is taxed at 15 percent, and less than $8,000 at 28 percent. For lower-income workers, the effect can be even more dramatic because of the earned income tax credit, a credit designed to ease the tax burden on low-income working families. For example, the Congressional Budget Office last year found that two single parents earning $11,000 each would have no income tax liability and each would receive a $2,150 refund under the EITC. If they married, they would owe $765 in tax and receive only $1,368 under the EITC. The credit would wipe out their tax liability, but their refund would be only $603. Thus this couple would lose $3,701, or 16.8 percent of their income, by virtue of being married. The CBO study found that about 42 percent of couples paid a marriage penalty in 1996, 51 percent paid less than they would have as singles--a marriage ``bonus''--and 6 percent were unaffected. In other words, 21 million couples paid an average of $1,400 in additional taxes because they were married, while 25 million got a tax benefit--to the tune of an average $1,300--because of their marital status. In total, penalties added up to $29 billion, and bonuses to $33 billion. Since World War II, tax policy has veered from greatly benefiting married couples to helping out singles to today's hodgepodge of rules that benefit some married couples and penalize others. The CBO noted that ``marriage penalties and bonuses are not deliberately intended to punish or reward marriage. Rather they are the result of a delicate balance among disparate goals of the federal income tax system.'' Some scholars have found bonuses and penalties in the code going back to 1914, but the modern dispute dates from 1930. At that time, taxes were levied on individuals, and single or married people paid at the same rates. This benefited couples in which spouses had similar incomes and penalized those in which one earned much more than the other. In community-property states, however, state law required that couples share all income equally. Taxpayers in those states had begun dividing their income equally for tax purposes as well, and in 1930 the Supreme Court upheld that strategy. This resulted in couples in different states being taxed at different rates, depending on whether they lived in a community-property or common-law state. In 1948, to remedy this, Congress began allowing all couples to, in effect, equally divide their income. This, in turn, meant that singles paid more tax on the same income than married couples. By 1970, a single person with $20,000 in income was paying $5,328 in tax compared with $3,750 for a married couple--a 42 percent penalty for the single person. Congress limited the differential to 20 percent beginning in 1971, and in 1981 it added a two-earner deduction of up to $3,000. This cut the penalty for couples affected by the penalty but boosted the bonus for others. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 repealed the two-earner credit but also sharply reduced the number of tax brackets, from 15 to two--at 15 percent and 28 percent--and thus also reduced the marriage penalty. The addition of new brackets in 1990 and 1993 boosted the number to five, and the issue began heating up again.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last week I called the attention of my colleagues to the rise of neofacism in Austria. The deed is now done. The extremist, racist, xenophobic FPO party has entered the Government of Austria. I want to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have joined me in supporting this resolution expressing our regret and dismay. Joerg Haider, the leader of this party, had ample praise for Adolf Hitler and for SS veterans whom he described as ``decent people with character who stuck to their beliefs.'' I want to commend the European Union, all 14 nations, which have chosen to downgrade their diplomatic relations with Austria. I want to commend our own State Department for recalling our Ambassador to Austria and for promising to watch developments carefully. At a time, Mr. Speaker, when the European Union, the United States, and other democratic nations are working actively to discourage ethnic hatred in the republics of the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere, Joerg Haider and his neofascist allies are appealing to racist sentiment and xenophobia. Haider learned this lesson early on. His father joined the Nazi Party in 1929. His mother was an active and enthusiastic Nazi Party member as a teacher. Haider has surely learned the lesson well. We recognize the right of the Austrian people to elect anybody they choose. However, we reserve the right to express our views when people elect Communist totalitarian regimes or Fascist totalitarian regimes. We are not there yet. This extremist xenophobic, far right-wing political party is only one of two parties of the Austrian coalition, and we will follow their activities with great care. They have made many commendable promises; but we will have to see how--in the unfolding of Austrian policy, domestic and international--these high- sounding promises are implemented. The leaders of the European Union, all 14 nations, as well as other nations outside the European Union like Canada, Israel, and Norway, have expressed their deep concern about the new Government of Austria. One of the concerns that I shared in looking at this new far right-wing regime is the impact it is having in legitimatizing antidemocratic, racist forces in other countries of Europe. This is an awful way to begin the 21st century. Therefore, we need to engage in a voluntary ban against tourism to Austria, the purchase of Austrian products, the use of Austrian airlines, and investments in that country. People need to understand that elections have consequences; and when 27 percent of the Austrian electorate chooses to support an extremist who has made complimentary remarks about Adolf Hitler and who has repeatedly expressed the most obnoxious, racist and xenophobic sentiments, the American people and the people of other civilized countries must respond. We hope that this government will be better than the past record of Haider's party. There is always an opportunity for change, for reformation, for learning lessons. I call on all of my colleagues and I call on our administration to watch with the utmost care the actions of the new Austrian Government. It is important for us to realize that Adolf Hitler was voted into power, and the fact that people come to power through elections says nothing about their values. Democracy is not just elections; it is the sharing of a set of values of free and open societies. I call on all of my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this resolution so it can be the voice of the Congress in expressing our concern over political trends in Austria.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday morning the 48th National Prayer Breakfast was held here in Washington. This annual event dates to 1952 when the first gathering was held to pray for President-elect Dwight Eisenhower and his administration. Each year since 1952, the President and Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries, Members of Congress, international government leaders, clergy and others have met to reaffirm their faith and to seek divine guidance in making critical decisions. At the National Prayer Breakfast last week, our colleague from the Senate, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, was one of the principal speakers, and his remarks were outstanding. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Senator Lieberman's remarks be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues in the House to give his speech careful and thoughtful attention. Remarks of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman at the 48th National Prayer Breakfast Mr. President and Mrs. Clinton, Speaker Hastert, Reverend Clergy, Nuncio Montalvo, Dr. Graham, General and Mrs. Ralston, other head table guests and honored guests in the hall, ladies and gentlemen: To each and every one of you I say, Blessed be they who come in the name of the Lord. This morning, in this place, this very temporal city comes together to reach up to touch the timeless. It brings to mind the story of the man who is blessed to be able to speak with G-d, and in awe of the Lord's freedom from human constraints of time and space, he asks: ``Lord, what is a second like to you?'' And G-d answers, ``A second to me is like a thousand years.'' The man then asks, ``And Lord, what is a penny like to you?'' ``To me,'' the Lord declares, ``a penny is a like a million dollars.'' The man pauses, thinks for a minute, and then asks, ``Lord, would you give me a penny?'' And G-d answers, ``I will. In a second.'' I am honored to have been asked to speak to you this morning, but as the story shows, I proceed with a profound sense of my own human limitations. I want to begin by talking with you about the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfasts--those still-small gatherings that have, along with their counterpart in the House, spawned this magnificent National Prayer Breakfast as well as similar meetings in every American state and so many countries around the world. When I was first invited years ago to the Senate Prayer Breakfast, I found a lot of excuses not to go. Some were good--like my reluctance to leave my family so early on a weekday morning. But some excuses were not-so-good--like my apprehension that the Senate Prayer Breakfast was really a Christian breakfast and that, because I am Jewish, I might feel awkward or my presence might inhibit my Christian friends in their expressions of faith. I was wrong on both counts. The regular participants in the breakfast, and our wonderful chaplain, Lloyd Ogilvie, persisted and finally convinced me to attend by employing a tactic that usually works with us politicians: they asked me to be the speaker. That was a very important morning in my now 11 years in Washington. We began with prayer and readings from the bible and then called on the chaplain, who told us about some people in the Senate family we might want to pray for, because they were ill or had lost loved ones. Then it was my turn. I spoke about the Passover holiday and answered some very thoughtful questions. At the end, we joined hands and prayed together. All in all, it lasted less than an hour, but I was moved that morning. More than that, I felt at home. Today, I can tell you that the weekly Prayer Breakfasts have become the time in my hectic life in the Senate when I feel most at home, most tied to a community. Because we are at those breakfasts not as Senators; not as Republicans or Democrats, or liberals or conservatives; not even particularly as Christians or Jews. We are there as men and women of faith linked by a bond that transcends all the other descriptors and dividers--our shared love of G-d and acceptance of His Sovereignty over us, and our common commitment to try to live according to the universal moral laws of the Lord. I pray that all of you who have come here this morning feel those same unifying, humanizing, elevating sentiments. And I also pray, as we begin this new session of Congress, that your presence will inspire those of us who are privileged to serve in government to appreciate the truth that is so palpable at these breakfasts: What unites us is much greater than what divides us. The work that needs to be done for the people we in government serve will best be done if we work together, and we will work together best if we understand that we are blessed not only to be citizens of the same beloved country, but children of the same awesome G-d. Praying for the Lord's guidance and strength as we begin a new Congress has been the traditional purpose of this National Prayer Breakfast. But there is another stated aspiration and that is ``to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our Nation and ourselves to God and his purposes.'' I want to speak with you about that second goal this morning because I believe it is critically important at this moment in our national history when our economic life is thriving, but our moral life is stagnating. Although so much is so good in our country today, there are other ways in which we desperately need to do better. There is compelling evidence, for example, that our culture has coarsened; that our standards of decency and civility have eroded; and that the traditional sources of values in our society--faith, family, and community--are in a life-and-death struggle with the darker forces of immorality, inhumanity, and greed. From the beginning of our existence, we Americans have known where to turn in such times of moral challenge. ``Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,'' John Adams wrote. George Washington warned us never to ``indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.'' That is why we pledge our allegiance to ``one nation under G-d.'' And why faith has played such a central role in our nation's history. Great spiritual awakenings have brought strength and purpose to the American experience. In the 18th Century, the first Great Awakening put America on the road to independence, freedom, and equality. In the 19th Century, the Second Awakening gave birth to the abolitionist movement, which removed the stain of slavery from American life and made the promise of equality more real. And in the early 20th Century, a third religious awakening led to great acts of justice and charity toward the poor and the exploited, which expressed themselves ultimately in a progressive burst of social legislation. In recent years, I believe, there have been clear signs of a new American spiritual awakening. This one began in the hearts of millions of Americans who felt threatened by the vulgarity and violence in our society, and turned to religion as the best way to rebuild a wall of principle and purpose around themselves and their families. Christians flocked to their churches, Jews to their synagogues, Muslims to their Mosques, and Buddhists and Hindus to their temples. Others chose alternate spiritual movements as their way to values, order, and peace of mind. It has been as if millions of modern men and women were hearing the ancient voice of the prophet Hosea saying, ``Thou hast stumbled in thine iniquity . . . Therefore, turn to thy G-d . . . keep mercy and justice.'' This morning, I want to ask all who are here to think about how we can strengthen and expand the current spiritual awakening so it not only inspires us individually and within our separate faith communities, but also renews and elevates the moral and cultural life of our nation? Let me suggest that we begin by talking more to each other about our beliefs and our values, talking in the spirit of this prayer breakfast--open, generous, and mutually respectful--so that we may strengthen each other in our common quest. The Catholic theologian, Michael Novak, has written wisely: " ``Americans are starved for good conversations about important matters of the human spirit. In Victorian England, religious devotion was not a forbidden topic of conversation, sex was. In America today, the inhibitions are reversed.'' So let us break through those inhibitions to talk together, study together, and pray together, remembering the call in Chronicles to ``give thanks to G-d, to declare His name and make His acts known among the peoples . . . to sing to Him and speak of all His wonders.'' We who believe and observe have an additional opportunity and responsibility to reach out to those who may neither believe nor observe, to reassure them that we share with them the core values of America, that our faith is not inconsistent with their freedom, and that our values do not make us intolerant of their differences. Discussion, study, and prayer are only the beginning, because we know that in the end we will be judged by our behavior. In the Koran, the Prophet says: ``So woe to the praying ones who are unmindful of their prayer--and refrain from acts of kindness.'' Isaiah summarizes the Torah in two acts: ``Keep justice and do righteousness.'' And the Beatitudes inspire and direct us: ``Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness for they shall be filled; blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see G-d. Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called the children of G-d.'' Turning faith into action is particularly appropriate in this millennial year, whose significance will be determined not by turning a page on our calendars at home or work, but by turning a page on the calendar of our hearts and deeds. To make a difference, we must take our religious beliefs and values--our sense of justice, of right and wrong--into America's cultural and communal life. In fact, that has begun to happen. In our nation's public places, including our schools, people are finding constitutional ways to honor and express faith in G-d. In the entertainment industry, a surge of persistent public pressure--a revolt of the revolted--has prodded at least some executives to acknowledge their civic and moral responsibility to our society and our children. It's even happening in government, where we have come together in recent years under President Clinton's leadership to embrace some of our best values by enacting new laws and programs that help the poor by reforming welfare, that protect the innocent by combating crime, and that restore responsibility by balancing our budget. In communities across America, people of faith are working to repair some of the worst effects of our damaged moral and cultural life, like teenage pregnancy, family disintegration, drug dependency, and homelessness. Charitable giving is up, more of the young are turning to community service, and because our economy is booming, or perhaps in spite of it, people are finding they need more than material wealth to achieve happiness. They want spiritual fulfillment, cultural elevation, more time with their families, and more confidence that they are making a difference for the better. So there is reason in this millennial year to go forward from this 48th National Prayer Breakfast with hope, ready to serve God with gladness by transforming these good beginnings into America's next Great Spiritual Awakening--one that will secure the moral future of our nation and raise up the quality of life of all our people. ``Let your light shine before others,'' Jesus said, ``so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.'' If we do, then in time, as Isaiah prophesied: ``Every valley will be exalted, and every mountain and hill will be made low. The crooked will become straight, and the rough places smooth. For the earth will be full of the glory of the Lord.''

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on whatever side my colleagues were last night in the New Hampshire primary, I am calling on all of them to join me as I introduce a resolution this morning with respect to the outrageous neofascist developments in Austria. Austria for decades paraded as Hitler's first victim, when in point in fact Austria was Hitler's first ally. Now, the neo-Nazi leader is about to be admitted to the Austrian government. All other 14 nations of the European Union are downgrading diplomatic relations with Austria, and my resolution calls for a voluntary boycott of tourism to Austria, the purchase of Austrian products, the use of Austrian Airlines, and the downgrading of our own diplomatic relations with Austria. Mr. Speaker, this is not a time to introduce fascism into the New Europe. I applaud the European leadership for denouncing this outrageous neofascist development.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this past December, Congregation B'nai Emunah in San Francisco marked its fiftieth anniversary. This Saturday, the congregation will celebrate this important milestone. I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating this very special Jewish community on its longevity, unique history, and contributions to our city. The name of the Congregation--B'nai Emunah--means ``Children of Faith,'' and its history is truly unique. After Jewish businesses and synagogues were destroyed by the Nazis in 1938, many countries closed their borders to Jewish migrants who sought to flee the racism, terror and persecution they found under Nazi rule. One stunning exception to this was the city of Shanghai, China. There threatened remnants of the Jewish community from Germany and Austria found refuge. Shanghai was a free city governed by the international Shanghai Municipal Council. The city and the Chinese people had already welcomed thousands of Russian Jewish refugees after the Soviet revolution of 1917. In 1938 Shanghai required no visas or other formalities for the more than 20,000 Jewish immigrants from Germany and Austria who flocked to that safe haven. Mr. Speaker, immediately upon arriving in Shanghai, the German and Austrian Jewish community rebuilt in camps the sanctuaries that they had watched the Nazi mob destroy in their homelands. When the war in the Pacific broke out in 1941, the community was ghettoized in a dilapidated Chinese slum, but their synagogues continued to function. They survived and flourished even under Japanese occupation and occasional mistaken bombs from U.S. Air Force planes. Following World War II and the outbreak of the Civil War in China, the entire Jewish community in Shanghai left China and dispersed. Thousands relocated to San Francisco, the nearest American port. In 1949 a group of dedicated Jews met with one of the rabbis from Shanghai and made the decision to reestablish the synagogue they had twice lost. The new congregation embraced all the elements of the late Shanghai community--Russian, Sephardim and German/Austrian--and was named congregation B'nai Emunah, although it has always been known as ``The Shanghai Synagogue.'' In the last fifty years, Congregation B'nai Emunah has expanded and flourished. A new generation has emerged to whom the Shanghai story is as important to their own identity as it was to the preceding generation. This jubilee fiftieth year will see the building of the ``Shanghai Center,'' which will house a museum, library and archive. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in extending congratulations to Congregation B'nai Emunah on this very important occasion.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a fascinating debate because on many issues we clearly agree. We certainly agree that the United States is absolutely committed to the safety and security of Taiwan. As a matter of fact, it was the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations who reminded us a few minutes ago that when the government in Beijing was making hostile moves, this administration sent two aircraft carrier battle groups to the Straits of Taiwan to underscore our unshakable commitment to the security of Taiwan. We all agree on this. We all rejoice in the democracy that Taiwan has built and in the prosperity that its people have created. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, will not add one single missile to Taiwan's defense capability and it will not take away one single missile from China's military capabilities. It will do nothing, repeat, nothing to enhance the military security of Taiwan. Many years ago, when I was a young faculty member at the University of Washington in Seattle, I had two friends, distinguished senior members of the faculty, both of whom hated smoking. One of them, who had considerable gravitas and enjoyed great respect, had a sign in his office which said ``no smoking.'' Nobody ever smoked in that office. My other friend, much more easygoing, in some ways less respected, had a sign which said ``positively no smoking.'' Every time you went into his office, you could barely see him because the smoke was so dense. What we are doing now, we are saying the sign ``no smoking'' does not do the job, so we are going to say ``positively no smoking,'' and we think that this will have a salutary impact. Teddy Roosevelt reminded us a long time ago that for a superpower to be effective, it should talk softly and carry a big stick. It has been good advice since Teddy Roosevelt's day, and it is equally good advice in this instance. I have not heard one of my colleagues make one single observation critical of the Taiwan Relations Act, under which we and Taiwan have functioned for over 20 years. The Taiwan Relations Act, which we all support, which has been on the books for more than two decades, was sufficient to provide Taiwan all the conceivable military equipment Taiwan needed. It provided a framework for Taiwan to develop one of the most prosperous economies, one of the most technologically advanced economies, on the face of this planet. And, to top it all, it allowed Taiwan to develop a full-fledged functioning political democracy, all this under the Taiwan Relations Act. If my colleagues had been able to indicate that we need something new, something special which is not taking place today, I could see some reason for this legislation. Even on the issue of providing more space at our military academies for young, qualified Taiwanese officers, there is zero guarantee in this legislation that a single Taiwanese will be able to attend West Point or Annapolis or the Air Force Academy as a result of this legislation. The legislation does no good. The question is, does it do any harm. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, it does a great deal of harm. It exacerbates the already tenuous relationship across the Taiwan Straits. It physically provides nothing new for Taiwan except enhanced anxiety, and postpones the day when the cross-channel dialogue, the cross-straits dialogue, will bring about an amicable resolution of the Taiwan-China conflict. We are equally committed, all of us in this Chamber, to Taiwan's physical security, economic prosperity, and political democracy. This measure is not only redundant, it is counterproductive. It will undermine and erode the stability, however tenuous, in the region without adding a single component which could be pointed to as positive, either in Taiwan-China relations or in U.S.-Taiwan relations or U.S.-China relations. Sometimes in the legislative process bills are introduced, people get committed to them, and then it becomes embarrassing to say, well, maybe it was not necessary. Perhaps we should drop it. That is the situation in which we now find ourselves. I have listened to this debate with great care. There has not been a single item advanced by any of my good friends on other side of the aisle that would persuade me in the slightest that this piece of legislation is needed. Taiwan has received every single military item that it would be able to receive under this proposed new legislation. Our commitment has been steadfast. The President ordered two aircraft carrier battle groups to the Taiwan Straits when there was trouble. Should there be new trouble, this president or the next president will do the same. We know this. The Chinese know this. This legislation is a redundancy at best, and counterproductive at worst. I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat it.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from New York for yielding me this time. I will rise in the strongest possible opposition to this legislation when it is offered, and I would like to ask my colleagues to pay careful attention to this legislation, which, while well-intentioned, will be wholly counterproductive and will dramatically enhance instability in the region. Let me first say that during the course of the many years that we have debated the China issue, I am proud to have been one who has uniformly fought for human rights in China; who has uniformly fought for the right of the people of Tibet; who has uniformly rejected Most Favored Nation treatment for China, and will continue to do so. What is at stake here is the unintended unraveling of a carefully crafted ambivalence in U.S. foreign policy towards China and Taiwan, a foreign policy which under Republican and Democratic administrations has succeeded in making Taiwan a strong, prosperous, and democratic society. What this legislation will do, it will enhance instability and uncertainty in the region, and it will not contribute one iota to the security of Taiwan. Let me elaborate. When the question of an invitation to the distinguished President of Taiwan from his alma mater, Cornell University, came before our body, and the administration was committed to denying him a visa because that was part of our agreement with the government in Beijing, I introduced a resolution compelling the Department of State to issue a visa to the democratically elected President of Taiwan to go to Cornell to receive his honorary doctorate. My legislation passed this body on May 2, 1995, by a vote of 390-0 and the Senate by a vote of 97-1. When the question of Chinese application to host the Olympic Games in the year 2000 came before our body, it was my pleasure to introduce a resolution expressing the strong view that this Congress will not countenance the holding of the Olympic Games in China as long as human rights violations are as widespread, as long as the denial to religious freedom are as widespread, as long as the practice of forced abortions are as widespread as they are in China. And this body and the Senate approved my legislation. A short while before we left for our Christmas break, I had the privilege of speaking on behalf of a religious movement, global in nature, called Falun Gong that the Chinese Communist Government is persecuting, harassing, and imprisoning its leaders. So I come to this debate as one whose opposition to the odious practices of the Chinese Communist regime have been on display for two decades. But I also come to this debate as one who has supported the Taiwan Relations Act, passed in 1979, which for the past 20 years has facilitated Taiwan's development as one of the most prosperous, advanced, and democratic societies on the face of this planet. As a matter of fact, one of the few great achievements on a bipartisan basis of the administrations during the course of the last 20 years has been the tremendous development in Taiwan. Taiwan today is a powerful, prosperous, and democratic society. Our relationship with Taiwan and China is predicated on the carefully crafted fiction that there is only one China; and this fiction, which we pay tribute to on a daily basis, has an ambassador in Beijing but no ambassador but somebody who acts like an ambassador in Taipei. The Chinese Government in Beijing sends an ambassador here to represent China; and the Government of Taiwan sends someone who, while not with the rank of ambassador, ably and effectively represents the interest of Taiwan. When he visits me in my office, I refer to him as ``Mr. Ambassador.'' Now, this carefully crafted ambivalence and ambiguity has allowed us to support Taiwan's defense needs to the fullest possible extent. Taiwan today is stronger than it has ever been in its history. Speaking for myself, I will be voting for whatever defense requirements Taiwan comes to us with insofar as these requirements will be necessary for the defense of that island. This piece of legislation, well-intentioned but totally counterproductive, will add nothing to the security of Taiwan. What it will do, it will stir up a hornet's nest in the region. It will enhance instability, anxiety, and uncertainty. While the crafters of this legislation had good intentions, they clearly did not take into account that, in public diplomacy, ambivalence and ambiguity have a long established and distinguished place. It is that ambiguity and ambivalence which the presence of our peculiar relationship with Taiwan so ably demonstrates which will be undermined and destroyed by this piece of legislation. Now, this is not a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker. As was mentioned earlier, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations and the Ranking Member, both good friends of mine, are supporting this legislation. Some of the most distinguished Republicans on the Committee on International Relations joined me in opposing this legislation. So the issue has no partisan element. It has no partisan component. The issue before us is very simple: Do we wish to enhance the stability of the region or do we wish to add to the periodic outbursts of instability that the passage of this legislation will surely bring about. It is my considered judgment that it is in the national security interest of the United States to see this legislation defeated. The President has indicated and his top foreign policy advisors have indicated that if the legislation is approved in its present form, they will recommend a veto. I hope the President will veto, and I will vote to sustain that veto. It is unnecessary, it is counterproductive, it is nonsensical to bring into our complex relationship with China yet another divisive matter, the only consequence of which is to diminish the security of Taiwan, the exact opposite, the exact opposite that the crafters of this legislation intend. Now, when my legislation was passed, Mr. Speaker, allowing the President of Taiwan to go to Cornell, the Chinese in Beijing went ballistic. They went ballistic to the point of engaging in military action in the waters around Taiwan. The invitation to President Lee was a matter of principle. This is not. This is a matter of bad policy judgment. But the reaction is predictable. It will create horrendous tensions in the Taiwan Straits. It will dramatically diminish the chances of cross-straits dialogue. What every Member of this body wants is to see the China-Taiwan conflict resolved without military means, peacefully, constructively. This piece of legislation torpedoes that objective. When we will discuss this legislation, I will strongly urge my colleagues to vote against it. I have nothing against the rule. The rule is not the issue in this instance, Mr. Speaker. But what is at issue is a fundamental bipartisan foreign policy successfully pursued by Republican and Democratic administrations for 21 years under President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush, and President Clinton. Taiwan has thrived given our existing legislative framework vis-a-vis that country. This legislation will undermine that stability. It will threaten the stability and peace in the Taiwan Straits. And we shall rue the day if we were to pass this legislation as we see the consequences unfold. We will have plenty of China issues to discuss in the next few months. Some in this body will be advocating Most Favored Nation treatment on a permanent basis to mainland China. I hope there will be enough of us to oppose that legislation when it comes to this floor. This is a piece of legislation that is counterproductive, poorly thought through, and hostile to the security interests of both Taiwan and the United States, and I strongly urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to an excellent speech given by our outstanding Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott. The speech was given at All Souls College at Oxford University on January 21 of this year. The speech was published in The Washington Times on January 28. I ask that the text of Deputy Secretary Talbott's speech be placed in the Record. The future of Russia is a matter of great interest and great concern to the American people. In this speech Strobe Talbott gives us the benefit of his long experience with Russia and his critical insight, and I urge my colleagues to give his comments thoughtful attention. [From the Washington Times, Jan. 28, 2000] Which Way Russia? Chechnya Is the Test (By Strobe Talbott) In many ways, Russia is a self-liberated country, but it's also in many ways an unhappy, confused and angry one. That's partly because almost every good thing that has happened there over the past decade--and there are many--has had its dark underside. For example, the implosion of the monolithic police state has left a vacuum of the kind that nature--especially human nature-- abhors. In place of the old, bureaucratized criminality there is a new kind of lawlessness. It's what my friend and colleague Bronislaw Geremek has called ``the privatization of power.'' And it has, quite literally, given a bad name to democracy, reform, the free market, even liberty itself. Many Russians have come to associate those words with corruption and with the Russian state's inadequacy in looking after the welfare of its citizens. For all these reasons, Russia's first decade as an electoral democracy has been a smutnoye vremya, or ``time of troubles.'' That brings me to Chechnya, which is the most visible and violent of Russia's troubles. That republic is one of 89 regions of Russia--it constitutes less than one-tenth of 1 percent of landmass that stretches across 11 time zones. But with every passing week, the horror unfolding there becomes increasingly the focus of Russia's attention--and the world's condemnation. In just the past few days, Russian forces have renewed their onslaught against Grozny, where thousands of civilians remain trapped, unable to flee to safety. There are reports of Chechen rebels using civilians as human shields, of Russian military units using incendiary devices and fuel- air explosives. What we are seeing is a gruesome reminder of how hard it is for Russia to break free of its own past. Indeed, Chechnya is an emblematic part of that past. The region has been a thorn in Russia's side for about 300 years. Leo Tolstoy served in the czarist army there and wrote about the often-losing struggle to make those mountain warriors loyal subjects of the Russian Empire. In 1944, Josef Stalin had the perfect totalitarian solution to the problem: wholesale deportation of the Chechen people--or what we would call today ethnic cleansing. In this decade, Chechnya has been a recurrent obstacle to Russia's movement in the direction that we, and many Russians, hope will mark its course. While elsewhere across the vastness of Russia, reformers have been experimenting with what they call new thinking, the seemingly intractable conflict in the North Caucasus has brought out the worst of old thinking: namely, the excessive reliance on force and the treatment of entire categories of people as enemies. And by the way: It's not just the old-thinkers who are to blame for this relapse. From 1992 through 1993, a reform-ist government in Moscow left Chechnya largely to its own devices. The combination of Moscow's neglect and miserable local conditions whetted the Chechens' appetite for total independence. Had Chechnya attained that status, it would immediately have qualified as a failed state. Kidnapping, drug trafficking and every other form of criminality were rampant. It was an anarchist's utopia and any government's nightmare. When Russia tried to reimpose control, the result was a bloody debacle. The first Chechen war, from '94 to '96, ended, in significant measure, because it was so unpopular. Boris Yeltsin wanted the fighting over before he faced re- election, so he ended it on terms that granted the Chechen authorities even more autonomy. But once again, Moscow, having extricated itself, averted its gaze. The central government made virtually no effort to help establish Chechnya as a secular, peaceful, prosperous polity within the Russian Federation. The deteriorating conditions and free-for-all atmosphere became an even stronger magnet for secessionists, Islamic radicals and other extremists, many indigenous but some foreign as well. Last summer, some of these elements used Chechen territory as a base of offensive operations against other parts of Russia. Now, here's where the irony is most acute: Unlike the one four years ago, the current war has had broad popular support. That's primarily because most Russians have no doubt that this time, rather than their army being bogged down in some remote and basically alien hinterland, this time it's defending a heartland that is under attack from marauding outsiders--including outsiders within--that is, non-Russians living in Russia. Thus, Chechnya has fanned the resurgence of another ism-- nationalism. That phenomenon was the target of particular passion and eloquence on the part of Sir Isaiah Berlin, the late British historian of ideas. He saw nationalism as inherently conducive to intolerance and friction, both inside states and between them. He recognized that national consciousness exists, by definition, in all nations; but he warned that when the nation in question feels afflicted by the ``wounds'' of ``collective humiliation'' nationalism becomes what he called ``an inflamed condition.'' Russia today suffers from just such a condition. Chechnya has generated fears, resentments and frustrations in its own right. But it has also come to symbolize for many Russians a more general sense of grievance and vulnerability after a decade of other difficulties and setbacks, real and imagined--most conspicuously the enlargement of NATO and the Kosovo war. But while there are these ominous trends, they haven't by any means won. The political environment of their ebb and flow is still pluralistic. Atavistic voices and forces are contending with modern ones that advocate an open, inclusive society and an open, cooperative approach to the outside world. When I was in Moscow last month, I heard the word zapadnichestvo. It might loosely be translated as Russia's pursuit of its Western vocation. Zapadnichestvo is not an ism: It's in some ways the opposite--an endorsement of a liberal antipathy to isms. Moreover, I heard this word used in a favorable and even optimistic context by at least one of Vladimir Putin's erstwhile political allies on what Russians call ``the right'' of the--that is, what we would call the liberal-democratic end of the political spectrum. Zapadnichestvo derives from the 19th-century debate between the Westernizers and the Slavophiles. There was at least an echo of the concept of zapadnichestvo in what Mr. Putin himself told me when I saw him on that same trip: He said he wants to see Russia as ``part of the West.'' Granted, he has sent other, quite different signals to other, quite different audiences. He's been doing so rather dramatically in recent days. We can speculate together--and that's all we can do at this point--on exactly what he's up to in his recent parliamentary maneuvers. But one theme that he strikes consistently, whomever he's addressing, is a desire to see Russia regain its strength, its sense of national pride and purpose. In and of itself, that goal is not only understandable--its achievement is indispensable. No country can succeed without those ingredients. It all depends on how Russia defines strength, how it defines security. Will it do so in today's terms, or yesterday's--in terms that are proving successful elsewhere, or in terms that have already proved disastrous for Russia under Soviet rule? Will Russia recognize that in an age of global--and regional--interdependence, the porousness of borders is a necessity out of which a viable state must make a virtue? Or will it fall back into the habit of treating this and other facts of life as a vulnerability to be neutralized, or--that most Soviet of all verbs--to be liquidated? Will Russia understand that indiscriminate aerial attacks, forced movement of populations and civilian round- ups--no matter what the original provocation and ongoing threat--are the acts of a weak and desperate state, not a strong and clear-headed one? This is the vexing question, not just about Mr. Putin but about his country as a whole. It's a genuinely open question. Moreover, the answer will probably be evolutionary, not revolutionary. Russia has had its revolution, and its counterrevolution. The last thing its people want or need is another upheaval. Evolutions, by definition, take a long time--surely a generation or more. In the final analysis, it's the Russians themselves and no one else who will decide on the character of their state.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today President Bill Clinton is in Bulgaria, the first visit by a President of the United States to this important Balkan country. One of the principal purposes of President Clinton's trip to Bulgaria is to recognize and acknowledge the contribution Bulgaria made to NATO during the conflict in Yugoslavia. Bulgaria permitted NATO aircraft to overfly its territory during the air campaign against Serbia, and Bulgaria has suffered substantial economic losses as a result of economic sanctions against Yugoslavia (Serbia). An expression of the gratitude of the United States is most appropriate. In addition to Bulgaria's cooperation in the conflict with Yugoslavia, Mr. Speaker, Bulgaria has contributed to regional peacekeeping and security. It maintains constructive relations with all of its neighbors, and it is host to the Southeastern Europe Multinational Peacekeeping Force, which comprises personnel from eight countries in the region. Bulgaria was the first country to recognize the sovereignty of neighboring Macedonia, setting an example of how countries in the Balkans can respect internationally-recognized borders and governments. Bulgaria has expressed its desire to become a member of NATO, and as Bulgaria continues to progress economically and politically Mr. Speaker, what President Clinton is seeing in Bulgaria is a country that is very different than the image most Americans have of the Balkans--and a country that is a stark contrast to its western neighbor, Yugoslavia. Over the past decade since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of Soviet domination of Central and Eastern Europe, Bulgaria has been transformed from a Soviet satellite into a functioning democracy. Several peaceful and competitive elections have been held--the most recent just two weeks ago. The current government of Prime Minister Ivan Kostov is implementing a broad program of economic and structural reforms that have produced modest levels of growth, controlled inflation, high levels of foreign investment, and international assistance. Financial markets have stabilized with the discipline of a currency board. State enterprises are being privatized. The Bulgarian economy is on a path that will lead toward eventual membership in the European Union, with accession negotiations scheduled to begin with Brussels next year. Mr. Speaker, what separates Bulgaria from many of its neighbors is its deeply ingrained sense of religious and ethnic tolerance. Earlier in this century, Bulgaria welcomed thousands of Armenian refugees who were subjected to suffering and persecution in Turkey and other countries of the region. Then, during World War II, Bulgarians demonstrated a remarkable example of national courage and heroism when they acted to save the country's Jewish population, which numbered 50,000 persons, from deportation to Nazi death camps. This is a story largely unknown outside of Bulgaria, although my wife Annette has made considerable efforts to publicize the heroic efforts of the Bulgarian people. Despite strong pressure from Hitler's Germany, thousands of Bulgarians--parliamentarians, religious leaders, intellectuals, and ordinary workers risked their own lives and refused to send their neighbors and fellow Bulgarians to the Nazi crematoria. As a result, not a single Bulgarian Jew living within the boundaries of the country was sent to a concentration camp. More recently, Mr. Speaker, Bulgarians have sought to better integrate the minority Turkish population--which numbers some 800,000 persons among a population of 8.4 million persons--into the political and economic life of the country. Under communism, Bulgaria in the mid- 1980's forced ethnic Turks to assimilate with the majority population by changing their names. Mosques were closed. Turkish-language education was curtailed. Many thousands of ethnic Turks fled the country. After communism's collapse, however, relations between Turks and Bulgarians improved dramatically. Bulgaria's pragmatic President, Petar Stoyanov, publicly apologized for his country's behavior toward its ethnic Turks at the time when the country was under communist rule. Turkey and Bulgaria have signed a series of agreements on free trade, cross-border investment, customs tariffs and even military cooperation. Mr. Speaker, in addition, Bulgarian Orthodox and Muslim religious leaders often work together, and in some communities churches and mosques are found in the same neighborhood. The two governments have initiated a program to help reunite Bulgarian and Turkish families separated by past conflicts. Bulgaria provided emergency relief in the wake of recent earthquakes that devastated Turkey. These initiatives have helped heal the wounds of the past. Mr. Speaker, at the core of Bulgaria's efforts to promote tolerance has been political inclusion and education. In October 1990, Bulgaria's first post-communist government included a Turkish party that won ten percent of the total seats in Parliament. In the area of education, Bulgarian school texts have been revised to include a more accurate history of Bulgarian-Turkish relations. School teachers from the country's Turkish regions are sent to Turkey to better learn how to teach the Turkish language. As Europe, the United States and the international community go about the task of rebuilding Southeastern Europe in the wake of the war in Kosovo, we should look to the example of Bulgaria as a society where ethnic and religious groups are peacefully co-existing, and where tolerance is ingrained in the country's culture and history. Mr. Speaker, the high-profile visit of President Clinton to Bulgaria calls attention to Bulgaria's fine record in this regard. Even among the multi-ethnic and multi-religious complexity so characteristic of the Balkans, which has led to so much human suffering and armed conflict in that region, people of diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds can live and work together peacefully and successfully. The Bulgarian people have shown that this can be done.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, Arthur Szyk is considered by many scholars to be the greatest illuminator who worked in the twentieth century in the style of sixteenth-century miniaturist painters. The Times of London described his Haggadah as ``worthy to be placed among the most beautiful of books that the hand of man has produced.'' He is indeed one of the most remarkable and talented artists of this century. Arthur Szyk's works on George Washington and the American Revolution hung in the White House during the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and these works are now on display at the Roosevelt Presidential Library at Hyde Park, New York. In recognition of his talent and commitment, the U.S. Congress presented Arthur Szyk the George Washington Bicentennial Medal in 1934. Mr. Speaker, Arthur Szyk was not just an artist, he was an artist with a point of view, and he used his art to speak out for freedom and democratic values. He was the leading political artist in America during World War II, and he wielded his pen and his brush as a sword in the fight against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. During the war, his caricatures and cartoons appeared on the front covers of many of America's leading magazines--Colliers, Esquire, Time--where his graphic political editorials and brilliant parodies lampooned the Nazi and Axis leaders. His art seethed with mockery and scorn for the Fascist dictators. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt called Szyk a ``one-man army against Hitler.'' As Szyk himself said, ``Art is not my aim, it is my means.'' In addition to his art advancing the fight against Germany and Japan, he used his art to attack racism, bigotry and inhumanity at all levels. He sought to close the gaps between Blacks and Whites, between Jews and non-Jews. He defended the rights of the soldier, and he expressed sympathy and compassion for the victims and refugees of war-torn Europe. Mr. Speaker, Arthur Szyk was born in Lodz Poland in 1894. He came to the United States in 1940 sent here by the Polish government-in-exile and by the government of Great Britain with a mission to bring the face of the war in Europe to the American public. That he did with great skill and vision. He remained in the United States, became an American citizen, and died in New York City in 1951. Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of my colleagues to an excellent exhibit of the work of Arthur Szyk which will open in just a few days. The exhibit ``Arthur Szyk: Artist for Freedom'' will be on display in the Swann Gallery of the Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress from December 9, 1999 through May 6, 2000. I urge my colleagues to visit this exhibit, which is literally across the street from this Chamber. Arthur Szyk is one of the great artists of this century, and his art not only reflected and helped to define a critical period in the history of our nation, his art also helped to rally Americans in the fight for freedom and against brutal tyranny during World War II.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call to the attention of my colleagues of a General Accounting Office (GAO) report which I requested. The report-- entitled ``Migrant Children: Education and HHS Need to Improve the Exchange of Participant Information''--has just been released. The GAO study reports problems with federal education programs which have been established to help children of migrant farm worker families. The two largest federal education programs, Migrant Education and Migrant Head Start, help over 660,000 migrant children overcome educational hardships. The report concludes that federal education programs created to help children of migrant farm worker families, could better serve migrant children. Mr. Speaker, migrant children routinely suffer poverty, inadequate housing, social isolation, pesticide exposure, and disrupted schooling as their families move from place to place and from state to state in search of work. The fresh produce and rich variety of canned and frozen foods on our American tables would not be available without the labor of migrant farm worker families, but migrant children, many of whom labor in the fields along side their parents, frequently do not share in this bounty. We need effective programs which can help these children. According to the GAO report, migrant workers are diverse, young, and mobile. Although most are Mexican and Mexican-American, there has been an influx of workers from Central America. At the same time, a substantial portion of the migrant labor force includes English- speaking, white U.S. families; Bengali-speaking workers harvesting grapes and fruit in California; Russian-speaking workers fishing and logging in the Northwest; and Gullah-speaking, African-American families shrimping in Georgia. Over the years, the workforce has become younger, and today most migrant farm workers are under 35. In particular, the number of teenage boys who migrate without their families--many as young as 13 years of age--continues to increase. Mr. Speaker, about half of all migrant workers travel with their families. Most migrant farm worker families live in two or more locations per year, disrupting the education and preschool experience of children. This not only disrupts regular education, it can also disrupt special services available to migrant children. In part this is because children who may be eligible for special education services in one location are not eligible when they move to another location and in part because critical information, such as immunization records and special education needs assessments, are not transmitted or are not accepted at the new school. Because children of migrant farm families are in an area for a relatively short time, they may not receive the services they need and they may receive unnecessary immunizations or diagnostic assessments. An additional problem for older children is satisfying the courses requirements for high school graduation. Requirements differ from school district to school district and records of courses completed must be transmitted to the new school district, and frequently this does not happen or it happens only with considerable delay. Mr. Speaker, the GAO recommends that to help all migrant infant and preschoolers get the services they need, the Secretary of Health and Human Services expand its definition of eligible agricultural occupations available for Migrant Head Start (MHS) programs to harmonize with those listed under Migrant Educational Program (MEP). Currently, only children of crop workers are eligible for MHS, whereas those eligible for MEP include children of dairy workers and fishers, as well as crop workers. As a result of MHS' narrower eligibility requirements, fewer infants and preschool migrant children are eligible for MHS than for MEP. The GAO's second recommendation, to make sure that critical information is transmitted to the receiving school or center when it is needed. In order to assure that this is done, GAO recommends that the Secretaries of Education and of Health and Human Services to develop an electronic nationwide system that would allow schools and MHS centers to readily access or request educational and health information migrant children. Currently, the absence of a national system often results in inappropriate classroom placements, delays in receiving services, repeated immunizations, or failures to complete high school graduation requirements. GAO's third recommendation is that the two cabinet Secretaries include in their respective research and evaluation plans studies that measure the outcomes of MEP and MHS and the extent to which programs are meeting their goals. It is important that we know if migrant education and head start programs are working. Although both Education and HHS collect substantial amounts of program data, none of the current data enables either department to evaluate how much their programs are helping migrant children. Mr. Speaker, copies of this important report are available. I urge my colleagues to read the GAO's important new report on migrant children and join me in working to implement these important recommendations.