Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of this resolution. A few weeks ago, the Armenia people suffered a tragic loss. A group of armed terrorists broke into Armenia's parliament and assassinated eight political leaders, including Armenia's prime minister. These political leaders were killed in the midst of exercising their duty as elected political representatives. This resolution before the House today deplores these outrageous assassinations and expresses the sense of the House that the perpetrators of these vile acts must be brought swiftly to justice. Our resolution also commends the efforts of the late prime minister and the Armenian government for their deep commitment to democracy, to the rule of law, and to their support of free market reforms. As a result of the late prime minister's leadership, Mr. Speaker, Armenia is considered today one of the most politically stable countries in the region and one of the most market oriented. Armenia has approved the most liberal trade legislation among the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. Unfortunately, Armenia's economic development has been severely impeded by the protracted conflict over Nagorno-Karabagh, the Armenian populated autonomous enclave in neighboring Azerbaijan. The war has taken a heavy toll on both sides of the conflict, Mr. Speaker, but in recent months there has been some movement on the possible settlement of this conflict. All of us in this body earnestly hope that progress will continue despite these horrible assassinations. Mr. Speaker, the brother of Armenia's late prime minister has been selected to replace him, and I want the new prime minister to know that the United States stands ready to continue to assist Armenia as it develops its economy and attempts to bring peace and stability to the region. Now, these recent assassinations in Armenia have been particularly difficult on our fellow citizens of Armenian-American ancestry. Armenian-Americans must know that the United States Congress is not only following developments closely, but we will remain actively engaged in helping the people of Armenia to achieve the peace and prosperity they have fought for for so long and that they so richly deserve. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I recently introduced House Concurrent Resolution 209, a bipartisan resolution which strongly condemns the outrageous use of child soldiers around the world and calls on our government to support an international effort to develop an optional protocol to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. This resolution--which is currently cosponsored by over 40 of our distinguished colleagues--is based on the deeply disturbing testimony of numerous expert witnesses before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. They reported the most horrific practices including the forcible conscription of children--some as young as 7 years old--for use as combatants in armed conflicts around the world. As we speak, children are being conscripted into armies of some countries and warring factions through kidnaping and coercion, while others join out of economic necessity, the intention to avenge the loss of a family member, or for their own personal safety. Many times, these children are forced to kill in the most sadistic and gruesome fashion, their victims often other children or even their own family or friends. By forcing children to perpetrate the most horrific crimes against their own families ensures that these child soldiers cannot desert and can never return home. Mr. Speaker, our resolution clearly exposes the full scope of the problem of child soldiers. As it notes, experts estimate that in 1999 approximately 300,000 individuals under the age of 18 are participating in armed conflict in more than 30 countries around the world, and hundreds of thousands more are at risk of being conscripted. The practice of conscripting children has resulted in the deaths of two million minors in the last decade alone. In addition to those children who have been killed, an estimated six million have been seriously injured or permanently disabled. Let there be no mistake, Mr. Speaker, this truly global problem needs a global solution which can only be brought about by determined and concerned action of the world community. For this purpose, the United Nations established a working group in 1994 to develop an Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to address the issue of child soldiers. The United States and Somalia, a country without a functioning government, are the only two recognized countries in the world which have not ratified this Convention. Therefore, the U.S. cannot even be a party to this Optional Protocol. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which establishes very stringent and necessary protections with regard to educational, labor and developmental provisions, gives the world ``child'' the following meaning in Article 1: ``For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority in attained earlier.'' It is simply beyond my comprehension that the same Convention--which otherwise protects children in a comprehensive manner--makes an age exception in Article 38(3) for the most dangerous profession in the world, that of soldier: ``States Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, States Parties shall endeavor to give priority to those who are oldest.'' In light of the global developments I have outlined, the U.N. Working Group seeks to raise the minimum age for recruitment and participation in armed conflict from 15 to 18 years of age, but the U.S. delegation to the Working Group so far opposes this overwhelming international consensus, preventing a unanimous draft protocol. On October 29, 1998, this international consensus resulted in the decision by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to set a minimum age requirement of 18 for Untied Nations peacekeeping personnel made available by member nations of the United Nations. On the occasion of the unanimous adoption of Resolution 1261 (1999) on August 25, 1999 by the U.N. Security Council condemning the use of children in armed conflict, Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children and Armed Conflict, Olara Otunnu, addressed the Security Council. The Special Representative urged the adoption of a global three-pronged approach to combat the use of children in armed conflict including the raising of the age limit for recruitment and participation in armed conflict from the present age of 15 to 18 years; increased international pressure against armed groups which abuse children; and addressing political, social, and economic factors which create an environment where children become soldiers. Mr. Speaker, the international consensus is clear, and our government should not stand in the way of this consensus. Our government should not give unintentional cover to nations with deplorable human rights records by giving them an opportunity to hide behind the current U.S. position on this issue. While the U.S. accepts 17-year-old volunteers into its armed forces with parental consent, U.S. armed forces de facto already ensure that all but a negligible fraction of recruits have reached the age of 18 before being deployed in combat situations, because 17-year-old volunteers are in the ``training pipeline'' and do not complete their training until they are 18 years of age. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the text of H. Con. Res. 209 be inserted at this point in the Congressional Record. House Concurrent Resolution 209 Expressing condemnation of the use of children as soldiers and the belief that the United States should support and, where possible, lead efforts to establish and enforce international standards designed to end this abuse of human rights. Whereas in 1999 approximately 300,000 individuals under the age of 18 are participating in armed conflict in more than 30 countries worldwide and hundreds of thousands more are at risk of being conscripted at any given moment; Whereas many of these children are forcibly conscripted through kidnaping or coercion, while others join military units due to economic necessity, to avenge the loss of a family member, or for their own personal safety; Whereas many military commanders frequently force child soldiers to commit gruesome acts of ritual killings or torture against their enemies, including against other children; Whereas many military commanders separate children from their families in order to foster dependence on military units and leaders, leaving children vulnerable to manipulation, deep traumatization, and in need of psychological counseling and rehabilitation; Whereas child soldiers are exposed to hazardous conditions and risk physical injuries, sexually transmitted diseases, malnutrition, deformed backs and shoulders from carrying overweight loads, and respiratory and skin infections; Whereas many young female soldiers face the additional psychological and physical horrors of rape and sexual abuse, being enslaved for sexual purposes by militia commanders, and forced to endure severe social stigma should they return home; Whereas children in northern Uganda continue to be kidnaped by the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) which is supported and funded by the Government of Sudan and which has committed and continues to commit gross human rights violations in Uganda; Whereas children in Sri Lanka have been forcibly recruited by the opposition Tamil Tigers movement and forced to kill or be killed in the armed conflict in that country; Whereas an estimated 7,000 child soldiers have been involved in the conflict in Sierra Leone, some as young as age 10, with many being forced to commit extrajudicial executions, torture, rape, and amputations for the rebel Revolutionary United Front; Whereas the international community is developing a consensus on how to most effectively address the problem, and toward this end, the United Nations has established a working group to negotiate an optional international agreement on child soldiers which would raise the legal age of recruitment and participation in armed conflict to age 18; Whereas on October 29, 1998, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan set minimum age requirements for United Nations peacekeeping personnel that are made available by member nations of the United Nations; Whereas United Nations Under-Secretary General for Peacekeeping, Bernard Miyet, announced in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly that contributing governments of member nations were asked not to send civilian police and military observers under the age of 25, and that troops in national contingents should preferably be at least 21 years of age but in no case should they be younger than 18 years of age; Whereas on August 25, 1999, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1261 (1999) condemning the use of children in armed conflicts; Whereas in addressing the Security Council, the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children and Armed Conflict, Olara Otunnu, urged the adoption of a global three-pronged approach to combat the use of children in armed conflict: first, to raise the age limit for recruitment and participation in armed conflict from the present age of 15 to the age of 18; second, to increase international pressure on armed groups which currently abuse children; and third, to address the political, social, and economic factors which create an environment where children are induced by appeal of ideology or by socioeconomic collapse to become child soldiers; and Whereas the United States delegation to the United Nations working group relating to child soldiers has opposed efforts to raise the minimum age of participation in armed conflict to the age of 18 despite the support of an overwhelming majority of countries: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That-- (1) the Congress joins the international community in condemning the use of children as soldiers by governmental and non-governmental armed forces worldwide; and (2) it is the sense of the Congress that-- (A) the United States should not oppose current efforts to negotiate an optional international agreement to raise the international minimum age for military service to the age of 18; (B) the Secretary of State should address positively and expediently this issue in the next session of the United Nations working group relating to child soldiers before this process is abandoned by the international community; and (C) the President and the Congress should work together to enact a law that establishes a fund for the rehabilitation and reintegration into society of child soldiers.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this past week His Excellency Abdurrahman Wahid, the newly elected President of Indonesia, paid a brief visit to Washington, where he met with President Clinton and other officials of our government. This was an important visit, Mr. Speaker, because it reflected the desire to strengthen Indonesia's relations with the United States. President Wahid--both in private in conversations with President Clinton and publicly in statements to the press and to friends of Indonesia who welcomed him to Washington--affirmed Indonesia's desire, as he said ``to make sure that we are still great friends of the United States.'' I am pleased that President Clinton affirmed our friendship with Indonesia and emphasized our interest in a stable, prosperous, and democratic Indonesia. Mr. Speaker, I want to reaffirm my own commitment to strengthening our nation's relations with Indonesia. Indonesia is the fourth largest nation in the world, and it is a country that has recently taken the first important steps in the direction of greater democracy. The Indonesian elections held last June were an important step forward, the first democratic elections in Indonesia in nearly half a century. The next important step in strengthening democracy was the action of the Indonesian parliament just three weeks ago in voting to elect Abdurrahman Wahid as President of the country. Mr. Speaker, in the few short weeks since President Wahid has been in office he has taken a number of important steps to strengthen democracy in his country. There are still difficulties ahead, but he has started out on the right foot, and it is in our interest to support his efforts. The President has announced an effort to fight corruption, which has been one of the serious and persistent problems that faced Indonesia under its previous authoritarian leaders. Questions have been raised about certain actions of three members of President Wahid's cabinet. The President has announced that if the Attorney General finds evidence of corruption, the ministers will be investigated, charged, and relieved of office. That kind of integrity and moral leadership is what is required, and I believe President Wahid has these qualities. Mr. Speaker, President Wahid has also sought to establish civilian control over the military--an important democratic principle. The President appointed a civilian as his Minister of Defense, the first civilian to hold such a position. Democratic control of the military has been a serious matter of concern in Indonesia. The military has played an important role in the integration of Indonesia, but it has also acted outside the control of elected officials, as was particularly evident in the mishandling of the referendum in East Timor. Decades of the precedent of the military acting independently and abusing the human rights of Indonesians will be difficult to reverse overnight, but the direction taken by the President is clearly the right one. The President also has indicated his intention to speed the return of East Timorese refugees to their home. It is estimated that some 180,000 refugees from East Timor remain in Indonesian-controlled western Timor, but they have been unable or unwilling to return because of fear for their lives. The President's intention to see the return of these refugees reflects his pragmatic and principled interest in resolving this difficult issue. President Wahid has also taken steps in the foreign policy area that reflect his desire to involve Indonesia more positively in the world. He has indicated his intention to establish trade relations with the State of Israel. Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim nation, and such a decision reflects a serious interest to change past practice in the face of considerable opposition. President Wahid has the authority and credibility to make such a decision, since his is a highly respected Muslim religious leader. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in welcoming the enlightened leadership of Indonesia's new President. In the few short weeks that he has been in office, he has taken a number of important steps to strengthen democracy, to improve economic conditions, to restore the rule of law, and to deal with the difficult problems of his country. President Wahid assumes the leadership of this important country with integrity and a commitment to democratic values that we here in the United States admire and share. We wish him well in the challenges he faces, and we should work with him in meeting them.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all colleagues to vote for this concurrent resolution. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, if I may reclaim my time, I am very happy to have this clarification from my friend. It is important to be discriminating in the arena of foreign policy. When the outrages are perpetrated by Milosevic and his thugs, there are no overriding reasons why the United States should act with great caution or should speak with great caution. With respect to Russia, we have a tremendous range of issues on the plate, most importantly the presence of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in Russian possession. It would be utterly irresponsible for our government not to be cognizant of this fact in taking positions on the matter of Chechnya. If my friend will look at the statements of the appropriate officials of our Department of State and the White House on this issue, he will find to his satisfaction that the Chechen outrages have been denounced by our government as they should have been; but at the same time, a different policy is called for vis-a-vis Serbia and vis-a-vis Russia.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, a number of questions have been raised by the proposed acquisition of ARCO by BP Amoco. Mega-mergers are always matters of considerable concern because of their potential economic and business impacts. In this case, however, there are serious environmental questions that need to be considered seriously. ARCO is a major participant in Alaskan oil exploration and recovery, and the merged company will have enormous influence in that region. For this reason, it is important that we consider the environmental impacts of this merger. Mr. Speaker, the record of BP Amoco in Bolivia, for example, causes me to have very grave reservations about this merger and its impact in Alaska. Pan-American Energy, a South American subsidiary of BP Amoco, is allegedly responsible for contaminating the drinking water supply of a rural Bolivian town. The consistent failure of BP Amoco to deal with this relatively small issue in Bolivia raises serious questions in my mind about the firm's environmental sensitivity. Mr. Speaker, these environmental concerns are serious and deserve our careful consideration. I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to an excellent op-ed by Mr. Adam Kolton, the Arctic Campaign Director of the Alaska Wilderness League, which focuses on the negative environmental implications of BP Amoco-ARCO merger. I insert the text of Mr. Kolton's article in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to give it careful attention. As BP Amoco and ARCO Merger Nears, Future of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge Is Endangered (By Adam Kolton) BP Amoco's pending acquisition of ARCO will give the newly-merged company an enormous presence in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and an opportunity to preserve that ecologically fragile coastal plain for future generations. As the merger negotiations proceed, so should worldwide public scrutiny of BP Amoco's plans for oil exploration in the refuge. The Arctic Refuge is the only conservation area in the United States that safeguards a complete range of Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystems. It is home to more than 200 species of wildlife, including the largest international migratory caribou herd in the world, denning polar bears, rare musk oxen, and hundreds of thousands of migratory birds. The refuge is an international treasure. It is no secret that BP Amoco is lobbying hard to drill in the coastal plain, and it's certain that such drilling will seriously harm the environment in that environmentally fragile area. More drilling for oil in Alaska is one of the oil industry's priorities. Both BP Amoco and ARCO are members of Arctic Power, a lobby group supported by the oil industry and the state government of Alaska. Arctic Power has only one agenda item--to lobby Congress to open up the coastal plain for oil and gas drilling. BP Amoco's acquisition of ARCO is before The United States Federal Trade Commission. It is our hope that BP Amoco's poor environmental record will be considered as the merger approval process proceeds. Better still, BP Amoco could avoid great embarrassment, and set an example as an international environmental leader, by canceling its dangerous plans to drill for oil on the coastal plain. Such drilling would scar the coastal plain for decades. One need look no further than Prudhoe Bay, the area to the west of the refuge and starting point for the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. Development at Prudhoe Bay has permanently altered more than 400 square miles of pristine wilderness. The area is now one of the world's largest industrial complexes with more than 1,500 miles of roads and pipelines and thousands of acres of industrial facilities. In 1997 alone, about 500 oil spills occurred at this site, involving 80,000 gallons of oil, diesel fuel, acid, biocide, ethylene glycol, drilling fluid, produced water and other materials. Does Alaska need more of this type of environmental degradation? Opening the coastal plain to drilling will result in more of the same. The BP Amoco Environmental Record In Alaska and throughout the world, BP Amoco is not what its advertisements proclaim. Recent drilling activities in Bolivia resulted in serious water contamination. BP Amoco's drilling subcontractor there refused to continue work, as he became aware of BP Amoco's disregard for the water supply when drilling for oil in South America. BP Amoco this year pled guilty to a felony charge of dumping hazardous waste in Prudhoe Bay, and was fined $22 million. Doyon Drilling, a BP subcontractor, was recently fined $3 million after being found guilty of illegally injecting hazardous waste back into the groundwater at the company's Endicott Field along Alaska's North Slope. The hazardous waste eventually reached the surface and contaminated the surrounding Beaufort Sea. The company pleaded to 15 misdemeanor counts of violating conditions of the federal Clean Water Act, and was placed on probation for five years for ordering workers to dump thousands of gallons of toxic waste into unprotected well shafts. The BP Amoco merger would effectively end competition for oil on the North Slope of Alaska. BP Amoco/ARCO would effectively control 74 percent of all Alaska oil activities, 72 percent of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, and all North Slope oil extraction. Should a company with an abysmal environmental record have undue control over the one of the world's greatest natural treasures, Alaska? We think not. The record speaks for itself, and the future of an internationally significant environmental refuge is at stake.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last night a number of us joined in paying tribute to Deputy Secretary of Treasury, Stuart Eizenstat. He was honored at an event at the Department of State by our Secretary of State, Madeleine K. Albright, in recognition of his outstanding service as Undersecretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs. Mr. Speaker, Secretary Eizenstat is an extraordinary public servant who has undertaken exemplary efforts during his career in Washington. He served as the United States ambassador to the European Union, and then returned to Washington where he has served in three critical sub- cabinet posts in three key departments--the Department of Commerce, the Department of State, and now the Department of Treasury, where he serves as Deputy Secretary. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Secretary Eizenstat for his dedicated and effective service to our nation on this occasion. I also ask, Mr. Speaker, that the excellent remarks of Secretary Albright honoring Secretary Eizenstat be placed in the Record, and I also ask that the remarks of Deputy Secretary Eizenstat in response and discussion of United States relations with the European Union also be placed in the Record. EU-Eizenstat Dinner Ambassador Laajava: High Representative Solana; Secretary of State Valtasaari; excellencies from the diplomatic corps; Senators Baucus, Cleland, Lieberman and Sarbanes; Congressman Lantos; members of the Eizenstat family; friends, colleagues and distinguished guests: Good evening. It is my great pleasure to welcome all of you to the State Department. We are gathered here tonight for two very good reasons: to honor the Chiefs of Diplomatic Missions of the Members of the European Union and the European Commission; and to thank Stu Eizenstat for his magnificent job as Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs. Ten years ago tonight, the Berlin Wall was brought down from both sides, signalling an end to one chapter in the Euro-Atlantic Alliance, and the beginning of another. Since that time, the partnership between America and Europe has grown stronger and deeper, to take on new challenges not just on the continent but around the globe. Today, we are working together to advance peace and stability in the Balkans, on the Korean Peninsula, and in the Middle East. We are working to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, while fighting criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers wherever they may be. We are providing support for democracy from Russia and Ukraine to Nigeria and Indonesia. And our $300 billion-a-year trading relationship continues to grow, as we prepare together for a new round of WTO negotiations. None of this has happened by accident. It has been the result of hard work and detailed planning, including long hours of close consultations. The European diplomats whom we honor here tonight have been an essential part of that, and they deserve our heartfelt thanks. And of course, no one has done more to strengthen the U.S.- EU relationship than Stu Eizenstat. I first met Stu more than twenty years ago, when he was the Domestic Policy Adviser at the White House. Stu was young to have that top job, but his boss at the time--President Jimmy Carter--had a slogan: ``Why not the best?'' And I am sure you will all agree that Stu Eizenstat is the best. In the post-Cold War world, American security and prosperity depend increasingly on a stable and growing world economy. When I became Secretary of State, I wanted our diplomacy to reflect that fact. So I asked Stu to make sure that the State Department was doing its part to bring down trade barriers; open new markets; coordinate with our allies; and sustain what is now the longest economic expansion in American history. Thanks largely to his efforts, the United States has remained a global leader in economic diplomacy, with clear benefits both for our country and the world. And no one has done more to negotiate the very hardest issues raised by sanctions. It is testimony to his diplomatic skill that even to this day Stu Eizenstat remains on speaking terms both with Jesse Helms and France. We do not have time tonight to go over the full list of Stu's professional accomplishments. Suffice it to say that on each of the key international economic issues of the past seven years, from outlawing foreign commercial bribery to launching a new Transatlantic Economic Partnership, Stu has been there, leading the way. He has also been a great help to me in reaching out to the business community, because there is no more natural a constituency for a strong and successful American foreign policy. He has helped especially in emphasizing the importance of resources to back our leadership, and in taking the case for adequate foreign affairs funding to Capitol Hill. I know this remains a concern of Stu's at his new post at Treasury. And I'm sure he is supportive of my major preoccupation this week, which is to say to Congress that the time has come, at long last, this year, to pay America's UN bills. I suspect one of the reasons Stu Eizenstat has been so successful is because of his remarkable stamina and patience. He is famous for outlasting even his youngest colleagues in all-night negotiations, and bringing people together when most everyone else had given up. He is a living testament to what a combination of determination and tuna fish sandwiches can do. Stu has skill, determination and wit. That is a lot, but if it were all, I doubt we would be honoring him here tonight. Stu Eizenstat has shown throughout his career a dedication not only to succeeding, but to succeeding in the right cause, for the right purpose, in the right way. He understands that public service is not having a big office or a fancy title, it's about getting things that matter done. I don't know a better example than Stu's leadership on the issue of Holocaust assets. No one else could have done what he did: to shine with an unwavering hand the light of truth; to advocate fairly but with unrelenting honesty the need for justice; and to handle a raft of deeply emotional issues with unmatched dignity. For that work alone, Stu earned the Economist's praise as a ``national treasure'' but I think the entire world has reason to be grateful to this man. So now without further ado let me present Deputy Secretary Eizenstat with the State Department's Distinguished Service Award: ``For exceptional commitment to public service and the public interest in the execution of U.S. foreign and economic policy as Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs from 1997-1999. Your countless contributions in the international economic sphere helped to make the United States an anchor of stability and hope for people throughout the world. In addition, your dedication, perseverance and creativity opened new avenues to obtain justice and closure for victims of the Holocaust in the United States and around the world. Your personal example of values and morality in government service inspired all who served with you.'' Remarks by Stuart E. Eizenstat At Presentation of Distinguished Service Award by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright Madame Secretary, your remarks and this award are especially meaningful for several reasons. First, that it has come from you, a friend of over two decades, whose remarkable career I have watched up close--from our years together at the Carter White House, our work on presidential campaigns; your presidency of the Center for National Policy which I helped found with you; and now at the pinnacle, more than two exciting years working under your inspired leadership as Secretary of State. You have been not only a role model for women, who have seen you shatter the glass ceiling in the field of diplomacy. But you have become the embodiment, for all Americans and for people the world over, of the foreign policy of the greatest nation on earth. By bringing me back to the State Department, where I began this Administration as Ambassador to the European Union, you gave me the opportunity to work again with the dedicated professionals in the career Foreign Service and Civil Service who give so much time and talent to this country--at home and abroad. I have been privileged to serve with them. This award belongs to them, as well as to me. I have seen American diplomats, among their other responsibilities, time and again help our businesses win contracts in the face of tough foreign competition. Yet they receive so little credit and so few resources with which to work. Our foreign affairs budget is less than 1% of the Federal budget, but it makes 50% of the history of our time. As you have said so eloquently Madame Secretary, we cannot be a superpower on the cheap. It is urgent for Congress to give the men and women who conduct our foreign policy--political and economic--the support needed for America to continue to be the leading nation in the world. Second, just as you, Madam Secretary, have created a family spirit at the State Department, I am deeply grateful that you would permit me to share this moment with some of my many family and friends who have come from near and far to be here. To all of you, especially my dear wife Fran, my lifelong companion, adviser, and supporter, my sons Jay and Brian and their wives Jessica and Erin, and my mother Sylvia and mother-in-law Sarah, thank you for being here so that I can share this award with those who have done so much to make it possible for me to receive it. Last, it is particularly meaningful that this award is being given at a dinner in honor of the Ambassadors of the fifteen nations of the European Union, because so much of my work, and yours, Madame Secretary, has involved European relations. We are at the end of a century and a millennium. This nation was founded over two centuries ago by people who took the best ideas and ideals from Europe and shaped them in the crucible of a new world. We gave the world an example of a democratic revolution and a democratic form of government. This was our gift to Europe and the entire world, but it drew heavily from European philosophers and models. The 20th century has drawn us ever closer together across what many now call the pond--the Atlantic Ocean. In two world wars, the United States of America has expended vast resources and seen the blood of its finest men and women shed, along with those of our European allies, some of whom make even greater sacrifices, to secure democracy and freedom against tyranny, brutality and dictatorship. Europe's cause became our cause because we realized that their liberty and our own security were inextricably intertwined. We were not content to simply win the War. Together we also won the peace, and we did so as partners. Through the Marshall Plan we began the process of rebuilding war-torn Europe but also fostered European unity, so that in the future great wars on the European continent would be inconceivable. We created enduring institutions, military and economic, NATO, the Bretton Woods institutions (the IMF and World Bank) and the OECD. Over four harsh decades, we stayed together as the most intimate allies poised to defend Europe and freedom against any Soviet threat. Together we won the Cold War and together we created a new opportunity for a European continent united, whole, and free. No one has done more in our country, except for the President himself, to bring life to the dream of European unity than Secretary Albright. It was her vision and determination, together with our European allies, which made it possible for former Communist countries of the Soviet- dominated Warsaw Pact to become members of NATO. It was she who led the charge within the Administration to make NATO relevant to post-Cold War realities and who incorporated the lessons of World War II and the Holocaust by stemming Serbian aggression in Bosnia and in Kosovo together with our European allies. Now that we together won that war, together we must win this peace as we did after World War II. My own efforts for this Administration have been inextricably intertwined with the European Union. To me the two historic European events of the last half of the 20th century have been the end of Communism and the development of the European Union. The EU is one of the boldest visions and most successful experiments in peacemaking and shared sovereignty in the history of the world. I have observed up close the development of a single economic market, the creation of the Euro (which as early as 1993 I believed would be born), and the efforts to build a commensurate political cohesion. We recognize that Europe's economic health is directly connected to ours, and we have built the world's largest trade and investment relationship. But, we also recognize that America cannot go it alone and achieve our political and economic objectives. We strongly support the development of your Common Foreign and Security Policy, whose first High Representative, Javier Solana, is here, because we believe that with our shared democratic, free market, pluralistic values, this common EU policy will allow us to be even more effective partners in the 21st century to protect freedom and human rights not only in Europe but around the world. In 1955, I was pleased to be part of the creation of the New Transatlantic Agenda and in 1998 the Transatlantic Economic Partnership to bind us closer together in the post- Cold War era and to try to nip contentious disputes in the bud. Our work together last year in dealing with difficult economic sanctions legislation affecting investments in Cuba and Iran turned a potential negative in our relations into a positive joint effort that led to a common effort to promote human rights in Cuba and to deter Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. And, my continued work with many of the nations of the European Union, including Germany today, is seeking to bring belated justice to the victims of the Holocaust, the most profound human tragedy to occur on the European continent. Through all of this certain lessons emerge that can guide our future partnership: I have seen that when we act together great things happen and the world takes notice and follows. I was privileged to be part of the final negotiations for the Uruguay Trade Round in Brussels where our last minute compromise on agricultural and industrial issues broke a seven-year impasse and gave the world the benefits of the greatest trade liberalization in history. The partnership we were able to forge with the EU in Kyoto, Japan made possible the Kyoto Protocol to combat global warming. America must unite with its allies in the fight for freedom around the world. Although we have the economic, political, and military capability to wage this fight, America alone cannot be successful. In the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson, in our Declaration of Independence, we must have ``a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.'' We need our European allies and other allies as full partners in Europe and beyond. We must develop transatlantic relationships with our private sectors, NGOs and civil societies. We will solidify our relationships for the new post Cold War era by nurturing the business, labor, environmental and consumer dialogues we have created. With the interesting integration of the U.S. and the EU our economies, we must involve our private sectors to help us resolve our differences, enhance our workers' rights, and strengthen our environmental protections. U.S. policy on sanctions must be rationalized to better balance costs and gains and to provide ample Presidential discretion. It needs to recognize we have a monopoly on virtually no product and so to be effective sanctions should always try to be multilateral and include our European allies. Sanctions should focus on rogue nations and those who threaten our national interests, rather than on other countries, including European, even if we disagree with their policies toward those countries. The EU must not throw up artificial barriers to U.S. products or delay implementation of WTO rulings--nor should we. These actions create unnecessary tensions and divisions and undermine respect for the institution we have created together. So too we must show the world we fulfill our obligations, for example, by paying our arrears to the United Nations and other international institutions. There remains a vital bipartisan center in our country for continued engagement in Europe and in the world, despite a chorus of opposition from both sides of the political spectrum. European partnership and burden sharing with the U.S. can help nurture and strengthen a continued American commitment to constructive engagement around the globe. Indeed, the enlargement of the European Union is critical to the achievement of the dream of President Clinton and Secretary Albright of a Europe united across old East-west divisions. I close with a personal note. I am proud of my country. It is a selfless force for good and has done more than any nation to better the lot of mankind in this century. I am proud I could serve it--under Presidents Johnson, Carter, and Clinton, and with Secretaries Christopher and Albright--over the course of more than two decades, to return to this great and good nation a small part of what it has given to me, to my community, and to the world. And I am absolutely certain that America's future in the new Millennium will be even greater than its past.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but comment on the many things that come back to memory, listening to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). The distinguished Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and I were at the wall as it was destroyed physically, and it was our great pleasure to participate in the physical destruction of the Berlin Wall, which clearly is one of the highlights of my life, and I am sure that of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to yield 4 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in concluding this debate, we need to remind ourselves that, as we rejoice in the 10th anniversary of the collapse of the symbol of tyranny, the Berlin Wall, that the battle is not yet fully won. There are dictators in Tehran. There are dictators in Baghdad. There are dictators in North Korea. There are dictators in Belgrade. Our job will not be finished until every single man, woman, and child on the face of this planet will be able to practice his religion, speak his mind, be able to travel freely, be able to join associations of his own choosing, political parties or otherwise. We have come a long way. The Soviet Union is nothing but a bad memory. But dictatorial regimes still exist. Freedom Day, as we will celebrate it, will not be fully a reality until in every single country, from the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan to the Milosevic- controlled Yugoslavia, will be able to live and breathe freely. We hope that this body will then again proclaim freedom and Freedom Day on November 9 for all the inhabitants of this planet. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), my friend and colleague. He has been an indefatigable fighter on behalf of freedom during his service in this body.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I want to commend my friend and colleague, the gentleman from the New York (Mr. Gilman) and my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), for bringing this measure before the House. Of course, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, some of us lived through this period from the establishment of the Berlin Wall to its collapse, and these two bookends, in a sense, cover basically the period of the Cold War. I think it is instructive to begin our discussion of this issue by recognizing that the Berlin Wall is probably the only wall ever built in history not to keep the enemy out, but to see to it that the people behind the wall do not escape. The collapse of the Wall symbolized the collapse of the Soviet empire, and it indicated the end of the Third World War, which the West won without firing a single shot. What is most remarkable about our victory, Mr. Speaker, is that it was a fully bipartisan victory. It began with the farsighted visionary and pragmatic measures of a Democratic President, Harry Truman; and it concluded during the powerful leadership of President Ronald Reagan who did, in fact, call to have the Wall removed. And from Truman to Reagan, this remarkable era represented one of the most impressive bipartisan periods of foreign policy in the history of the United States. But it was not only our victory. It was the victory of our allies across Europe who joined together in NATO, the most impressive defensive military alliance the world had ever seen, to resist Soviet and Communist expansion, and it was the victory of the countless heroes behind the Iron Curtain who gave their lives so that others might live in freedom and democracy. Usually, suspension bills can be easily handled with 40 minutes of discussion and debate. This topic would require 40 hours to begin to pay proper tribute to the countless men and women in this country and abroad who fought for the cause of freedom and whom we honor by establishing a day of freedom, a global holiday on November 9. Let me just single out a few people who deserve special recognition. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Berlin Wall would still stand, the Soviet Union would still be in existence if it had not been for the farsighted and courageous leadership of Mr. Gorbachev in recognizing that the Soviet Union had lost the Cold War, that to continue the suppression of tens of millions of people by military force was doomed to defeat and was counterproductive. He deserves full credit along with the others I mentioned and countless others whom we do not have time to discuss this afternoon. But without Mikail Gorbachev's recognition that Russia and the Soviet Union must move along different lines, we would not be here celebrating Freedom Day, November 9. We need to pay tribute to the freedom fighters in Hungary in 1956, who, against overwhelming odds, demonstrated their commitment to freedom. We are here to pay tribute to the people who led the Prague Spring of 1968, when for the first time there was a determined effort to put an end to Communist dictatorship in the Czechoslovak Republic. We are here to pay tribute to individual men and women throughout the countries behind the Iron Curtain who, with their dedication and devotion to freedom, have made this day possible. We are here to pay tribute to the dissidents and refusniks in the Soviet Union who, under unbearably impossible conditions, persevered in their dedication to democratic principles. From the walled cities of Europe to the Great Wall of China, walls have always kept the enemy out. The Berlin Wall, and we celebrate its collapse 10 years ago today, the Berlin Wall was built to keep people in, to prevent them from escaping. We have succeeded in making Europe whole, free, democratic, and at peace. While the task is certainly not completed, as the events in Yugoslavia in the last few years so clearly demonstrate, we have come a long way in creating a stable and peaceful Europe, prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century. In paying tribute to Republican leaders and Democratic leaders, as well known as presidents and as unknown as ordinary people, who believed that people on both sides of the Iron Curtain were yearning to live in freedom and dignity and peace, we are paying tribute to the finest traditions of western civilization. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues in the House an article written by Gayle Forman which appeared in the October 1999 edition of Seventeen Magazine. The article, entitled ``We Are Invisible,'' is about one of this country's ugly secrets--children laboring in our country's fields, harvesting the produce that all of us eat, and working under deplorable and backbreaking conditions which take a toll of their health and education. In her excellent article, Ms. Forman writes about the challenges facing children and families who work in the fields in trying to scrape by on meager wages and appalling working conditions. Since most of my colleagues are not avid readers of Seventeen, I want to call their attention to this article and the very serious issue it raises. Agriculture is one of the most dangerous industries in the United States, but children are still allowed to work legally at very young ages for unlimited hours before and after school in extremely dangerous and unhealthy conditions. As many as 800,000 children work in agriculture in this country, picking the fruits and vegetables that end up in our grocery stores, either as fresh or processed fruits and vegetables. Children who work in our Nation's fields are killed and suffer life- changing injuries. Recently, a 9-year-old was accidently run over by a tractor and killed while working in a blueberry field in Michigan. A 13-year-old was knocked off a ladder while he was picking cherries in Washington State and was run over by a trailer being pulled by a tractor. A 17-year-old was sprayed twice by pesticides in 1 week in Utah while picking peaches and pruning apple trees and died of a massive brain hemorrhage. Children who work in agriculture often do so at the expense of their education--and education is critical to help these children break out of the cycle of poverty. Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility for the future of these children, which means their education, and we have a responsibility to protect them from job exploitation. Under current Federal law, children working in agriculture receive less protection than children working in other industries because of many outdated and outmoded exceptions included in our laws. For example, children age 12 and 13 can work unlimited hours outside of school in nonhazardous agricultural occupations but are prohibited from working in nonagricultural occupations. It is illegal for a 13-year-old to be paid to do clerical work in an air-conditioned office, but the same child can legally be paid to pick strawberries under the blazing summer sun. In some instances, children as young as 10 years old are working in the fields harvesting our Nation's produce. Mr. Speaker, our laws are inconsistent and out of date with regard to the long-term changes in agriculture that have taken place. Children working in agriculture no longer merit such separate and unequal protection. The agricultural industry is no longer dominated by family farmers who look out for their own children's health and well-being as they work in agriculture. Today, major agricultural conglomerates control much of the production and the work force in agriculture, and children who work in the fields are hired laborers. Given these and other changes in our Nation's agricultural economy, I ask why children in agriculture should be treated differently than children working in other industries. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 2119, the ``Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act'' which would provide equal standards of protection for children who work in agriculture and children who work in other sectors of our Nation's economy. The ``Young American Workers Bill of Rights'' would take children under the age of 14 out of the fields. It would create an exception only for family farms, where children would still be able to assist their parents on farms owned or operated by their family. Mr. Speaker, last year, our colleagues, Congressman Henry Waxman and Bernard Sanders and I released an important GAO report entitled ``Children Working in Agriculture'' which found that current legal protections, the enforcement of those protections, and educational opportunities for children working in our fields is grossly inadequate. The GAO reports that hundreds of thousands of children working in agriculture suffer severe consequences for their health, physical well- being and academic achievement. There are also weaknesses in enforcement and data collection procedures, with the result that child labor violations are not being detected. Mr. Speaker, as a result of this article which appeared in Seventeen Magazine, young people around our Nation have written to me during passage of legislation to deal with these problems. I ask that the article be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to read the article and support meaningful comprehensive domestic child labor reforms, specifically including adoption of H.R. 2119, the ``Young American Workers Bill of Rights.'' [From Seventeen Magazine, October 1999] (By Gayle Forman) We are Invisible Imagine that it's summer and instead of sleeping in and then hanging at the pool, you wake up at 5 a.m. You get dressed in jeans and a long-sleeved flannel shirt, and head out to a dusty field. There you spend the day bent over at the waist, plucking cucumbers that grow on prickly, low-lying vines in the ground. You do this alongside your family, throughout the day, taking a half-hour break for lunch. Imagine how it feels by afternoon, when the sun's glaring down on you, making you sweat so much in your heavy clothes that your body is dripping and your shoes are as wet as if you'd stepped in a puddle. Your hands swelter in gloves, but if you took them off you'd be exposed to pesticides or cut by thorns. Imagine that you work like this, sometimes for more than 12 hours, before heading back to the trailer or tent that is your temporary home. You shower, eat and go to sleep. The next morning you do it all over again. One more thing: Imagine that you're nine years old. Janie doesn't have to imagine this life. The 18-year-old from Weslaco, Texas, began working in the fields when she was nine. Along with her parents, two brothers and a sister, Janie is a farmer--but not the kind most of us think of. They don't live in a farmhouse or till their own fields. Rather, they're migrant farmworkers who crisscross the country from spring to fall, traveling from crop to crop, picking the fruits and vegetables that wind up on our tables. In spite of all the technological advances in this country, a majority of crops--including the oranges in your juice and the pickles on your burger--must be harvested by hand. And many of those hands belong to kids. The United Farm Workers union estimates that as many as 800,000 children work in agriculture in this country--and most of these kids are U.S. residents or citizens. Dangerous--and legal Here's the thing. Such work is not against the law. Under our child labor rules, a 13-year-old cannot work in a clothing store after school, but she or he can labor in a field. In fact, it's legal for children as young as 10 to hand-harvest crops for five hours a day if their parents and the farmers for whom they're working get permission from the U.S. Department of Labor. These laws may seem strange, but in the 1930s, when child labor statutes were set up to protect children, exemptions were made so kids could work on their families' farms. Today, however, most child agricultural laborers are migrant or seasonal workers who toil on someone's else's land. Some families--whether ignorant of or just ignoring the laws--will let really young kids work legally. ``I've seen children as young as six picking with their families,'' says Diane Mull, executive director of the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs (AFOP), an organization that provides support for migrant farmworkers. It's not that fieldworker parents don't love their kids. ``Parents are faced with tough choices. Either they're going to take their kids to the field, to help make as much money as possible, or they won't be able to put food on the table,'' says Mull. She's not exaggerating. Migrant farmworkers are among the poorest people in the country--the average family earns less than $10,000 a year. Janie understands that bleak economic reality all too well. ``When I first had to work, I was upset. I didn't want to do it,'' says the bright-eyed brunette, who loves salsa music and Jean-Claude Van Damme movies. ``My parents told me it was necessary if we wanted to meet our expenses. When I looked at it that way, I wanted to help.'' If parents were more aware of the dangers, they might be less willing to have their kids work on farms. Kids who labor in fields account for about 11 percent of working children in the United States--and 40 percent of all on-the-job deaths of kids happen to that small group. And then there are the pesticides: No one's sure what effect the chemicals have on kids because studies only look at how pesticides affect full- grown male adults. But a chemical that doesn't hurt a 150- pound man may be toxic to an 80-pound girl. And long-term exposure to pesticides has been linked to a bunch of health problems, from skin rashes to leukemia. Uprooted The threat of danger and disease is just one of the hardships of being a picker. As a migrant family follows the ripening crops, it's not unusual for them to live in several different places in one year. Rosa, 18, has been ``moving around since I was a baby.'' She and her family do the West Coast route--picking in California from January to May, then traveling up to Washington to harvest berries and apples until November. Conditions in the camps where Rosa lives aren't as comfortable as the trailers Janie stayed in. When Rosa travels, she, her parents, and four siblings usually live in a van or in tents near the fields. Meals are cooked over a campfire. When the season's over, the family heads to Mexico for November and December. This nomadic existence can totally mess up your academic life. When Rosa leaves California in May, she also has to leave school early. Come September, she's usually in Washington, meaning she has to start classes there. She misses six weeks of school when she's in Mexico, too. Every time she switches schools, she tries to catch up, but she still gets shoved in remedial classes. Plus her constant state of flux means that she's forever the new girl. ``It's hard. I'm always crying on the first day of school,'' Rosa says. ``I just sit in a corner, and after two weeks in one place, we move again.'' It can be a lonely life, and lots of migrant kids say they'd rather stick to themselves than build relationships only to sever them. ``I would like to have friends,'' says Rosa. ``But it's hard to make them. And I can't do the kinds of things you do with friends because I don't have money.'' Rosa hopes to graduate high school and become a nurse, but those gaps in her education mean she has missed out on more than a full social life. The director of her school's migrant program thinks Rosa will have a tough time making it to nursing school. Even so, it's not impossible for migrant teens to succeed. In spite of her stop-and-go schooling, Janie has managed to kick serious academic butt, acing her honors classes. After an essay that she'd written about being a migrant caught the eye of people at AFOP, Janie was selected to attend an International Labor Organization conference in Switzerland in June. Last spring she graduated from high school with a 4.0 GPA. She was set to go to Ohio State University--and then her scholarship fell through. Anxious to get on with her education, Janie enlisted in the army rather than wait to reapply for scholarships. Money doesn't grow on trees If Janey is a success story among migrant teens, she's also an exception. A near majority of migrants--45 to 55 percent, says Mull--don't graduate from high school. ``There are all these incentives for the kids not to stay in school,'' says Mull. ``They have the disruption in the flow of education. Some parents want older kids to work full-time. [In Mexico, where many migrant families are from, it's not uncommon for kids to leave school at 15.] Once they [these kids] start earning money, the motivation is to make more money.'' Cash was definitely on Rosalino's mind when he dropped out of school. Up until eighth grade, Rosalino, 18, lived and went to school in Mexico. After he and his family moved to Florida when he was 13, Rosalino quit school so he could help his family earn money. ``During the winter I work in strawberry fields in Florida,'' he explains, sitting under a weeping willow tree at a migrant camp in Michigan. ``In June my father and brothers and sisters drive two days to Michigan, where we pick until October.'' At the height of the season, Rosalino clears $200 a week--most of which goes to his family. That money must tide them over during the slow winter months, when jobs are sparse. The average migrant farmer works only 26 weeks a year, and many can't collect unemployment during the off-season. When Rosalino ponders his future, he hopes he'll be able to shake the mud off his boots and leave the fields. ``I don't want to work on farms all my life,'' he says. In his pursuit of a better career, however, he's hindered by a host of handicaps. He doesn't speak English, though he's lived in the United States for six years, and he doesn't have too many skills under his belt other than fieldwork. It's kids like Rosalino who worry children's advocates like California Representative Tom Lantos. The migrant life is usually a prison of poverty, Lantos says, and education is the key to unlocking that jail. ``These children won't have any future 10, 20, 30 years from now if they are deprived of their education, if their total work experience is farm labor,'' says Lantos. ``We must provide them with an education and an opportunity to develop their potential.'' labor against labor Unlike a lot of countries that turn a blind eye to child labor, the United States has been cracking down on farmers who employ underage kids. But, say advocates like Lantos, to really keep children out of the fields, we must change the laws so that it's no longer legal for them to be there. Lantos recently proposed a Young American Workers' Bill of Rights, which aims to close the loopholes in child labor laws that make it legal for kids and young teens to work long hours in agriculture. Secretary of Labor Alexis M. Herman says she's also trying ``to see how [current child labor laws] can be strengthened.'' But banning child labor and actually stopping it from happening are two very different things. ``We find children working in the fields in this country for many reasons besides a disregard for the law,'' says Secretary Herman. ``We have to address the root causes--chronic poverty, lack of child care, underemployment.'' And the government is trying. The federal government funds Migrant Head Start and other education programs that give kids a place to go during the day while their parents pick, and provide them with a school away from school, so they can continue their studies when their families are on the road. President Clinton has allocated more cash for education programs as well as job training projects that give kids (and adults) alternatives to the fields. There have also been efforts to make parents aware of the dangers of farmwork and the importance of keeping kids in school. Ultimately, though, migrant teens and their families will find it a rough road to hoe, says Mull. Major improvement in conditions would mean, among other things, paying adult pickers more so there would be less pressure to make kids work. But increasing wages could raise produce prices--and few consumers relish the idea of shelling out more money for a head of lettuce. Maybe if people understood the plight of migrant teens, they'd be willing to pay a few extra bucks a year to help, but, as Janie says, migrants are pretty much invisible to many Americans. ``I've met people who are running the country who don't know about the migrant life,'' says Janie. ``Most people don't even know we exist.''

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the Holocaust must be remembered and it must be studied to prevent the real danger of repeating the experience of that horrendous nightmare. As recent conflicts in the Great Lakes Region of Africa, Kosova, East-Timor as well as many other places remind us only too well that, although we are now enjoying an era of general prosperity and relative tranquility, many peoples around the world have not yet learned to live with one another in peace. In fact in the last decade, the practice of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, Kosova and other areas of the former Yugoslavia has only served to remind us how little progress we have made in the past half century. In this context, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we take note of a tragic anniversary on November 9th--the first physical violence against Germany's Jews by Hitler's Nazi regime. That tragic occasion has been given the name ``Kristallnacht''--Crystal Night--because of the number of broken and smashed windows that accompanied the racist violence. Years of dehumanizing anti-Semitic propaganda in Germany, which was intensified after Hitler and the Nazi party came to power in 1933, prepared the way for Kristallnacht. The aggressive racist and anti- Semitic policies of the Third Reich saw their first expression in violence on November 9, 1938. Kristallnacht serves as a chilling reminder to what happens when an inflamed mob mentality overtakes a nation. Mr. Speaker, Margret Hofmann was an eye-witness to the tragedy of Kristallnacht. She has devoted years of her life to researching and studying the circumstances surrounding Kristallnacht and its consequences. I want to commend her for her work and insert some excerpts from her studies that make a valuable contribution to our understanding of how Kristallnacht was a first step in setting in motion the nightmare of the Holocaust. In 1933, the German-Jewish poet Heinrich Heine said, ``Where books are burnt, Man will soon burn human beings.'' That is the point of beginning of Margret Hofmann as she considers the background and meaning of Kristallnacht. Books were burnt in Germany on May 10, 1933, people soon followed. In between the burning of the books and the burning of the people, the Nazi government in Germany instigated the notorious Kristallnacht, the ``Night of Broken Glass.'' This was the event which set the stage for Hitler and other Nazi leaders to attempt to ``eliminate'' the Jews from Germany and eventually the whole world. It was the kind of event that proved ideal for Nazi purposes. On October 27, 1938, Germany expelled 15,000 non-German Jews. Although many had lived in Germany for decades and even raised families there, they were put on trains and sent to Poland. This was done by the German government without notifying the Polish government or without taking any steps to deal with the number of people. Enraged by this action, Herschel Grynszpan, whose parents had been summarily expelled from Germany, went to the German Embassy in France and shot a German diplomat, Ernst vom Rath. The occasion was tailor-made for the Nazi propaganda machine. The funeral of vom Rath in his hometown of Dusseldorf was grandiose. The Nazi government used the murder of vom Rath to give a false impression that German citizens spontaneously rose against the Jews. The night of the funeral, November 9, 1938, the Nazi government instructed the local police throughout Germany to ``allow'' the German people to rise up and ``strike back'' at the Jews. ``The people'' were Nazi ``Brown Shirts'' and German soldiers. The police were told to make sure non-Jews were not attacked and only Jewish buildings were destroyed. All over Germany synagogues and temples were burned, Jewish homes were ransacked, and a number of Jews were killed. By 1938 the Nazi propaganda machine had complete control of the press, and this pogrom was portrayed as a spontaneous uprising against the Jews. From that point on, the Nazi regime with increasing violence stripped Jews of their rights. They were forced out of the schools and universities, they were prohibited from practicing law, medicine, and other professions. Many were evicted from their homes and their belongings were confiscated. Before long Jews were required to wear a yellow star of David on their clothes so others could recognize they were Jewish. Many streets were declared off-limits to Jews. After years of anti-Semitic propaganda, many Germans succumbed to racism, prejudice, intolerance, and discrimination. This racial hatred, which was given its defining violent moment in Kristallnacht, led directly to the ``Final Solution,'' the fanatic Nazi drive to annihilate the Jewish race. For each piece of history, we must find a defining moment. For Nazi Germany, it was Kristallnacht.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the service and commitment of some outstanding women--the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo. After 20 years, this non-profit organization has located 64 disappeared children of Argentina, and helped reunite the victims with their families, allowing them to recover their identity and their history. I want to commend the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo on their efforts and their dedication in reuniting children who disappeared during the military dictatorship that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983 with their legitimate families. Mr. Speaker, in 1976, the armed forces of Argentina began a process of systematically violating some of the most fundamental human rights. This despotism resulted in the disappearance of over 30,000 persons, including hundreds of children. The Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo have used many different tactics to search for these children who disappeared during the brutal tyranny of the military regime. Their primary purpose is to preserve the identity, roots and history of these children, which are the fundamental basis for human dignity. Fortunately, advances in science and technology have made it possible for these families to be reunited. Blood tests prove, with 99.95 percent accuracy, that a child comes from a particular family. This is a difficult process, for which the professionals and volunteers involved must be commended. The Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo have committed themselves to this praiseworthy endeavor. I am grateful for all they have accomplished, and I urge my colleagues to join me in commending them for their outstanding efforts and devotion to the cause of bringing justice to the families who suffered under Argentina's brutal military regime.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today I invite my colleagues to join me in commemorating the official ground-breaking for the Auschwitz Jewish Center a tribute to the Jews who perished in this century's most senseless tragedy. The Center, located in the last remaining synagogue in the town of Oswiecim (the Polish name for Auschwitz), will offer visitors to the site of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp an opportunity for reflection, education, and understanding of the enormous loss inflicted by the Holocaust. The groundbreaking for the Auschwitz Jewish Center takes place on the eve of the sixty- first anniversary of Kristallnacht (``The Night of Broken Glass''), the 1938 Nazi pogrom that foreshadowed the Holocaust and marked the beginning of the Nazi effort to exterminate the Jews. Ninety-one German and Austrian Jews were murdered during Kristallnacht, and 26,000 more were arrested and deported to concentration camps. Nazi thugs set fire to 101 synagogues and destroyed almost 7,500 Jewish- owned businesses. This evening of terror and brutality marked the beginning of the end of German Jewry. Kristallnacht, which was orchestrated by Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, was an attempt permanently to wreck the cultural and civic infrastructure of the Jewish people in the hope that Jews would never again find comfort in Germany. Mr. Speaker, the anniversary of Kristallnacht reminds us yet again why the establishment of the Auschwitz Jewish Center holds such great significance. The Center will offer visitors seminar rooms, a library, a memorial wall to victims of the Holocaust, genealogy records, and a screening room for viewing testimonials from Holocaust survivors which will be made available through an agreement with Steven Spielberg's Shoah Foundation. It will allow guests to learn about Oswiecim's rich Jewish history, which dates back to medieval times, and it will permit them to ponder over the destruction of this community and thousands like it across Europe. Most of all, the Center will offer Jews and non- Jews alike the opportunity to mourn and remember. I urge my colleagues to join me in praising the accomplishments of the Auschwitz Jewish Center Foundation, Inc., a New York based tax- exempt organization created in 1995 to support the Center's creation, and its founder and president, noted philanthropist Fred Schwartz. Mr. Schwartz and his lovely wife, Allyne, visited Auschwitz in 1993 and shortly after began the process of creating an institution that would help to ``attach human characteristics to the people who perished there.'' Fred set up the Auschwitz Jewish Center Foundation and, aided by the devoted efforts of executive director/vice president Daniel Eisenstadt and a wealth of other talented individuals, and the Center has contributed immeasurably to the memory of the victims of Auschwitz and the Holocaust. Mr. Speaker, Fred and Allyne Schwartz and all of their associates involved in the establishment of the Auschwitz Jewish Center merit the appreciation of every Member of the House. As a Holocaust survivor, I am grateful to them for paying tribute to the most horrendous legacy of the twentieth century. As a grandfather, I am even more indebted to them for keeping this memory alive for the twenty-first century and beyond.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the adoption of H. Con. Res. 124 expressing the sense of the Congress relating to recent allegations of espionage and illegal campaign financing that have brought into question the loyalty and probity of Americans of Asian ancestry. Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to our distinguished colleague from Oregon (Mr. Wu), who is the author of this resolution. This resolution is an important reminder to all Americans that we must never impute the actions of an individual to an entire group of people, and a reminder to all of us that America is a land of immigrants and that all Americans--regardless of their ethnic background--are entitled to the privileges and rights that are afforded by our Constitution. I also want to recognize the principal Republican cosponsor of this legislation, our distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Campbell). I have known Congressman Campbell since he was first elected to the House of Representatives, and I have the highest regard for his integrity and his commitment to the civil rights of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, the greatness of our nation rests in its diversity. The different cultures and varied experiences that groups of various ethnic origin bring to our nation are major factor in the vigor and strength of our nation. We owe a great deal to the Americans of Asian ancestry for the values and vitality that they bring to our nation. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that in the excitement and hysteria surrounding the issue of espionage by agents of the People's Republic of China the loyalty and patriotism of an entire class of American citizens--Americans of Asian ancestry--were brought into question. In the past our nation has condemned such scapegoating of an entire group of people, but now the China espionage hysteria has led to a similar problem with Asian-Americans. Mr. Speaker, some 120,000 Asian/Pacific Americans serve in positions in the United States government and military--these are loyal, dedicated Americans who make important contributions to our nation and our national security. The resolution we are considering today reaffirms the importance of judging every man and woman by his or her own actions and recognizes the danger of racial or ethnic stereotyping. Bigotry and racism have no place in the United States, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to reaffirm that essential principle by supporting H. Con. Res. 124.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to pay tribute to the young founder of this organization, Ms. Charity Tillemann-Dick, for her outstanding efforts in bringing this measure to our attention. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I first wanted to thank many of my colleagues who have worked on this legislation: The gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform; the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking Democrat; the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service; and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member. I particularly want to thank my friend and distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), for managing this legislation. Although she has been with us only a short time, she has brought a great deal of civility to this body for which we are deeply grateful. I also want to thank our colleagues who have been the principal cosponsors of this legislation, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer). As my colleague the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) has already indicated, these two colleagues have been committed to increasing the civility here within this House. They have been the leading force behind our biannual retreats in an effort to improve personal relations among colleagues here in this body. Their commitment to improving relations between Members is fully consistent with the purpose of this resolution that we are considering today. I am grateful for their enthusiastic support. Mr. Speaker, a student-created and student-run nonprofit organization, National Civility Week, Incorporated, deserves our support to restore civility, honesty, integrity, and respectful consideration in the United States. Our civilization, Mr. Speaker, is founded upon and cannot function without the values of honesty and courtesy and respectful consideration among its citizens. As parents and grandparents, we seek to teach and reaffirm these fundamental values of civility. But unfortunately, the lack of civility in recent years has become frighteningly apparent, as seen in road rage and school violence, personal deceit, and public corruption. Common courtesy has become bewilderingly uncommon. A large part of many Americans' behavior can be traced to a failure to honor the codes of civil conduct that have governed other societies for so many generations. The teaching of courtesy has declined, while the celebration of vulgarity and effrontery have increased. Many Americans have ceased to honor the good examples that surround them. In this context, too many people find it easy to manifest disrespect for other age groups, other races, other religions. National Civility Week, Incorporated, is a nonpartisan and nonprofit corporation which is devoted to reintroducing civility to our Nation. It honors those who practice common decency and simple honesty. It draws attention to the behaviors and standards that we respect as a people and celebrates the conduct that ties together the threads of our social fabric. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 170, the ``Honesty in Sweepstakes Act of 1999.'' This legislation will curb the devastating effects of one of the most troubling consumer abuses-- deceptive and misleading sweepstakes and other mass mail promotions. This legislation will help end this horrendous practice which has been devastating financially and emotionally to many seniors and other individuals on limited budgets. Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans receive sweepstakes letters each year that use deceptive marketing ploys to encourage the purchase of magazines and other products. Many of my constituents, especially seniors, regularly receive these offers for products in the mail that include extravagant promises of money and prizes in order to entice them to make unnecessary and unneeded purchases. Some common ploys used by unscrupulous mailers include ``promises'' of huge winnings printed in large type and other enticements such as ``immediate response required--$1 million cash payment pending.'' While these promises scream out in bold letters, the real details and conditions are hidden in fine print at the bottom of the last page where it is hard to find and particularly hard for seniors to read. Mr. Speaker, each year millions of consumers nationwide are deliberately misled into believing that they have won or are likely to win a sweepstakes, when, in fact, they have neither won, nor are they likely to win. The Honesty in Sweepstakes Act requires that all mailings which offer prizes through games of chance clearly state that the recipient has not automatically won. Another disgusting and deceptive method, Mr. Speaker, is sending mailings which contain slips of paper which are deceptively printed to look like cashier's checks, but which are actually worthless. These marketing tactics unfairly prey on people's hopes and dreams. H.R. 170 requires that all sweepstakes mailings that contain look-like cashier's checks prominently display that the check itself is non-negotiable and has no cash value. One deceptive practice which I find particularly offensive is sending mailings which are designed to look like a mailing from a Federal government agency. Seniors have been particularly vulnerable to these tactics, because they are generally more trusting of these mailings. H.R. 170 would prohibit mailings that suggest that they are sanctioned by or connected with the federal government. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 170 also requires companies that send sweepstakes or ``skill contests'' through the mail to establish a notification system, similar to the ``do not call'' lists of tele-marketers under which consumers can call a toll-free number to be removed from mailing lists. The legislation also requires that all sweepstakes mailings contain information about the existence of such ``do not mail'' lists and how a consumer can place his or her name on such a list. I am pleased that the bill will also permit individuals who receive a follow-up mailing after they have requested that their names be removed from a mailing list to sue sweepstakes companies in state court for violation of this law. Mr. Speaker, many consumers spend thousands of dollars each year on deceptive sweepstakes mailings, often spending their life savings without ever winning anything. H.R. 170 will help to protect consumers from unscrupulous operators of deceptive sweepstakes scams and will help end many of the most abusive practices of the sweepstakes industry. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation.