Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, five years ago this coming Sunday--on July 18, 1994--the Buenos Aires headquarters of the Asociacion Mutual Israelita Argentina (Argentine Jewish Mutual Association), known by its Spanish acronym AMIA, was bombed and destroyed by terrorists. In that vicious and cowardly attack against the Jewish community of Argentina, 86 individuals were killed and over 200 others were injured, many seriously. The victims included Argentinian Jews, but the majority were Argentinian citizens of other religious and ethnic backgrounds. Mr. Speaker, law enforcement officials have conducted in investigation into this horrendous act of terrorism, but five years after that event progress has been very limited. Five men, including four former police officers, have been arrested in connection with the bombing, and they are expected to go on trial ``soon.'' These individuals, however, are believed to be participants, but not the real perpetrators behind this heinous act. United States intelligence and criminal investigators believe that the Iranian government was behind the attack. Little information has been made public about the results of the effort to identify and arrest the real criminals who carried out this attack, and progress on the investigation has been painfully slow. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this was not the only, or even first such incident in Argentina. On March 17, 1992, just two years before the AMIA bombing, the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires and a nearby school and other buildings were destroyed in a car bomb blast in which 29 innocent children, women and men lost their lives, and another 252 innocent bystanders were injured. These victims included employees of the Israeli embassy and their families, children from a Roman Catholic primary school, women and men in a nearby Roman Catholic church shelter, a Roman Catholic priest, and a number of others. These unsolved crimes are a serious and sinister effort to intimidate the Jewish population of Argentina, as well as Jewish communities around the world, Mr. Speaker. The Argentine Jewish community numbers over 300,000 and is the largest Jewish community in Latin America. During the periods of military rule it was subject to severe anti- Semitism, and the community feels particularly vulnerable to assault from external radical Islamic groups and from indigenous far right extremists in Argentina. Mr. Speaker, on this unfortunate fifth anniversary of the AMIA bombing I invite my colleagues to join me in extending our condolences to the families of these who lost their lives in this senseless act of terrorism. I also invite my colleagues to join me in denouncing this bigoted anti-Semitic action, and in urging the Argentine government to move more vigorously and with greater purpose to solve this tragic case. I also invite my colleagues to join me in extending our support and encouragement to the Jewish Community of Argentine. The American people support your struggle against racism and anti-Semitism, and we commend you for your commitment to human rights and the rule of law.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that my colleagues are familiar with the extraordinary success of Oracle Corporation of Redwood Shores, California. Oracle is the world's second largest software company and the leading supplier of software for enterprise information management. Under the guidance of its visionary CEO, Larry Ellison, Oracle has pioneered the use of the Internet computing model for the development and deployment of enterprise software. The technological leadership of this outstanding company, which operates in more than 145 countries around the globe, has dramatically improved the ability of businesses to compete in our rapidly changing world. Oracle's status as a corporate role model, however, rests on far more than its supremacy in the field of information technology. A corporate citizen of the highest order, Oracle has generously provided services and technical support to charities and social causes around the world. The company has truly made a difference. Mr. Speaker, one recent illustration of exemplary corporate citizenship also demonstrated Oracle's information technology prowess and its application to public service. The ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Balkans, resulting from Slobodan Milosevic's campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosova, has left hundreds of thousands of refugees with husbands separated from wives and families and parents separated from their children. Attempts to reunite these shattered families have taxed the resources of NATO and international peacekeepers, as well as United Nations refugee officials and other humanitarian organizations. Desperate to ease the plight of lost family members, the American Red Cross turned to Oracle for an Internet-based solution. Oracle quickly responded by developing the Displaced Persons Linking System (DPLS), an innovative program which has greatly assisted relief workers in reuniting lost family members. In recent days, this technology has been used to bring together many refugees separated by the chaos of war, including a 13-year-old Kosovar refugee and her father in a Macedonian refugee camp, as well as an elderly Kosovar man in a New Jersey relief center and his son in Albania. Mr. Speaker, Oracle's outstanding humanitarian efforts were noted by the Acting President of the American Red Cross, Steve Bullock, who said: ``The Balkan refugee crisis is enormously complex both in terms of its size and scope. Oracle's status as the world's leader in information management technology has helped us tackle this problem in a manner that will help not only Kosovar refugees and their families, but also the victims of natural disasters whom the American Red Cross traditionally has served. I can think of a few organizations better suited to helping the American Red Cross move into the new millennium than Oracle.'' Mr. Speaker, Oracle's significant contribution to the relief effort in Kosova merits the sincere gratitude and appreciation of all of us. The development of the DPLS is only one of a multitude of charitable efforts initiated by Oracle. The Computers for Coexistence program, for example, uses the growth of Internet technology to promote peace and stability. Oracle is currently installing hundreds of network computers in Israeli and Palestinian cities, in schools and community centers, to link children of both people to the Internet and to foster communication between them. A similar effort to bridge the ``digital divide'' is also underway in Northern Ireland, offering a new avenue for bringing together Protestant and Catholic children and undermining ancient prejudices. An additional charitable venture, Oracle's Promise, is helping to better the lives of children here at home. By providing computers to schools in low-income neighborhoods across America. Oracle has helped to create enhanced learning opportunities for over 125,000 young people in more than 1,000 classrooms all over our country. These invaluable interventions have occurred in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, Washington, DC, and many other cities. These efforts have earned Oracle the commendation of General Colin Powell in his ``America's Promise 1999 Report to the Nation.'' Mr. Speaker, Oracle employees directly assist these various programs by volunteering in communities in all corners of our great country. In addition to the thousands of volunteer hours contributed to these projects. Oracle employees devote spare time to causes ranging from Meals on Wheels to literacy tutoring, from assisting senior citizens with minor home repairs to raising money for breast cancer research. Oracle strongly encourages and helps to coordinate these efforts, reflecting this corporate citizen's genuine commitment to public service. As America's economy grows and prospers, I hope that other companies follow Oracle's outstanding example by recognizing a corporate responsibility both to their communities and to the welfare of the less fortunate. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent in the Congress the international headquarters of Oracle Corporation, as well thousands of its employees in the Bay Area. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending the men and women of Oracle for their exceptional contributions to our society.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in an address to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, our exceptional Secretary of State, Madeleine K. Albright, discussed the current international interests of the United States as we move beyond Kosovo. She presented a thoughtful and insightful analysis of our nation's role in the post-Cold War world. Mr. Speaker, the 11 week NATO campaign to protect the rights of ethnic Albanians in the province of Kosovo was an important turning point in the history of Southeastern Europe. For the past decade we have dealt with inflamed Serbian nationalism incited and fomented by Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic for his own narrow political goals. The war over Kosovo has established the vital principle that ethnic cleansing and racial discrimination against a minority cannot and will not be tolerated by the international community. Three months ago, Mr. Speaker, press pundits and politicians--many of them here on the floor of this House--were quick to criticize and to express doubts about the policy of the Administration, which was ably articulated and implemented by Secretary Albright. Now we have succeeded in removing the threat to ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and have begun the process of implementing the principles of the Ramboulliet agreement that was signed by Albanian representatives shortly before the Serbian reign of terror was unleashed upon the Albanian population of Kosovo. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Secretary Albright for her outstanding leadership and her tireless diplomatic efforts which were so critical to the success of our military action in Kosovo. Secretary Albright has provided the vision that has guided our action in Kosovo. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Secretary Albright again provided that vision as she discussed with the members of the Council on Foreign Relations her view of the role of the United States in the post-Kosovo world. The military action of the NATO allies in Kosovo is a critical victory that will help define the nature of international relations. Secretary Albright was thoughtful in articulating the role that the United States should play in the post-Kosovo world. ``Some hope, and others fear, that Kosovo will be a precedent for similar interventions around the globe,'' she told the Council. ``I would caution against any such sweeping conclusions.'' At the same time, she expressed the hope that the NATO action against Serbia would serve to deter rogue governments in the future from engaging in such ethic, religious, and racial repression: ``By meeting massive ethnic cleansing in the Balkans with a red light, we make it less likely that NATO will be called upon to use force in the future.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask that Secretary Albright's thoughtful address to the Council on Foreign Relations be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to give it careful attention. [Address to the Council on Foreign Relations, June 28, 1999] After Kosovo: Building A Lasting Peace (By Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright) Thank you Les, and good evening to you all. Members of the Council on Foreign Relations and distinguished colleagues, friends and guests. NATO's confrontation with Belgrade over Kosovo has ended in accordance with the conditions the Alliance set. Now, we face the even harder task of building a lasting peace there and throughout Southeast Europe. This evening, I would like to discuss with you this historic challenge. Churchill once described Russia as a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. In Kosovo today, we see a success folded within a tragedy stamped with a question mark. Consider the reactions of the refugees and displaced as their time of exile ends. For some, coming home means a joyous reunion of family and friends. For others, it means a heart-stopping confirmation of terrible fears as bodies are identified and mass graves found. For all, it means uncertainty about what will come next. As a result, Kosovo today is a cauldron of grief mixed with exhilaration, of unresolved anger and unfilled dreams. Out of this the international community, and the area's people, must build a future secure and free. A starting point is provided by UN Security Council Resolution 1244, and the military and political arrangements to which it refers. In accordance with these, Serb forces have left, KFOR is deploying, and the Kosovo Liberation Army will demilitarize over the next 90 days. In addition, the United Nations Interim Mission is being set up. It will operate in partnership with the EU, the OSCE, donor countries and KFOR. And its duties will encompass civil administration, humanitarian relief, economic recovery, and the creation of democratic institutions, including--most crucially--a new local police. Assembling the nuts and bolts of a durable peace in Kosovo is a daunting challenge. Our expectations should be realistic. The mission will take time; complaints will surely be heard; and despite KFOR's presence, the danger of violence will persist. As is usual, the good news will often be treated as no news, while setbacks receive the spotlight. Success will require an extraordinary team effort. Notwithstanding all this, I am hopeful--for three reasons. First, for most of the past decade, Kosovo Albanians coped with Serb repression by maintaining parallel political, educational and social structures. They have experience managing institutions. Second, in past weeks, I have seen an extraordinary determination on the part of European officials to get this job done and done right. This is true from London to Helsinki and from Ankara to Lisbon. Failure is not an option. Third, the international community has learned some hard lessons in recent years about the do's and don'ts of building peace in post-conflict situations. It is essential that, in Kosovo, these lessons be heeded. The military and civilian components must work together well both internally and with each other. Both must take effective use of their mandates and focus on results. Donors must back them not just with promises, but with resources of sufficient quantity and timeliness to make a difference. Above all, we must have faith that the mission's underlying principles of democracy and tolerance, economic reform and the rule of law, are the right ones for all the people of Kosovo. There are some who see an insurmountable obstacle in the desire of many Kosovars for immediate independence, a position that neither NATO nor governments in the region support. Having met with the Kosovar leadership, I know the yearning for independence is powerful. But I also know that Belgrade's withdrawal has altered the reality within which the people of Kosovo will formulate their aspirations. Until now, independence has seemed the only alternative to repression. But in the future, Kosovars will have something they have never had, which is genuine self-government. They will be out from under Milosevic's boot, with the freedom to choose their own leaders and shape the laws by which they are governed. Milosevic, meanwhile, won't be able to arrest so much as a jaywalker in Kosovo. And his henchmen won't have the capacity to intimidate Kosovars or deny them their rights. That is why the Kosovar Albanian leadership signed on to the Rambouillet Accords, despite the absence of an independence guarantee. And while I will go out on a limb and predict that KFOR will receive strong cooperation from most Kosovars in the months ahead. Another key issue is whether the new Kosovo will include its ethnic Serb, Roma and other minorities, and whether they will be able to live safely now that Belgrade's forces have withdrawn. Given the extent of destruction inflicted by Serbs, the risk is obvious that some ethnic Albanians will take the law into their own hands. Many unacceptable incidents have already occurred. But KFOR takes seriously its mandate to protect all Kosovars, including Serbs. And its effectiveness will increase as deployment continues, and demilitarization gains steam. Kosovo will be a better place if Serbs who did not commit crimes stay and help rebuild. But that is their decision to make. We will measure our success by whether the rights of all those who choose to live in Kosovo are respected. The same principle, incidentally, should apply elsewhere in the region. The international community must continue to press for the safe return of other refugees, including ethnic Serbs to the Krajina region of Croatia. This is crucial, for there could be few greater gifts to the 21st Century than to bust the ghosts of Balkans past and consign Milosevic's tactics of hate to the trash bin of history. Even as we work to help Kosovo regain its feet, we are acting to secure the future of the region. With out partners in the European Union playing a big role, we have launched a Pact to stabilize, transform and eventually integrate all of Southeast Europe into the continent's democratic mainstream. We undertake this effort because it is right, but also because it is smart; for we know that America cannot be secure unless Europe is secure, which it will not be if its southeast corner remains wracked by division and strife. Our strategy, with our partners, is to apply the model of help and self-help reflected in the Marshall Plan half a century ago, and in efforts to aid democratization in Central Europe this decade. In this spirit, President Clinton will meet with his counterparts in the region this summer. Together, they will discuss ways to mobilize the resources of a wide range of governments and organizations, while coordinating with the European Community and World Bank. Our intention is to work urgently and effectively with leaders in Southeast Europe as they strive to attract capital, raise living standards, reconcile ethnic and religious tensions, and promote the rule of law. In this way, we hope over time to enable countries throughout the region to participate fully in the major economic and political institutions of the Trans-Atlantic community. This would greatly serve America's interest in expanding the area within Europe where wars simply do not happen. And it would mark another giant step towards the creation of a continent whole and free. We do not start from square one, but rather with a strong base of democratic leadership. Hungary has already joined NATO. Hungary and Slovenia are well along in accession negotiations with the EU. And officials in Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Albania and Croatia demonstrated throughout the recent crisis that they want their societies to grow, prosper and live in peace. The same is true of Montenegro, where President Djukanovic and his people endured grave danger without wavering in their support for democratic principles. They have earned the right to participate in our initiative. We look forward as well to welcoming a new Serbia, because our efforts at regional integration cannot fully succeed until that occurs. But Serbia will not receive help, except for humanitarian relief, until it is democratic and Milosevic is out of work or--better yet--in jail. This is only common sense. Milosevic led Serbia into four wars this decade. He has been indicted for crimes against humanity. He has lied repeatedly to his own people and to the world. His regime is hopelessly corrupt. He portrays himself as a hero, but he is a traitor to every honorable Serb and has no place in the region's future. We learned in Kosovo, as in Bosnia and Rwanda, that in this era of varied and mobile dangers, gross violations of human rights are everyone's business. Earlier this century, our predecessors confronted not only Hitler, but Fascism; not only Stalin, but Communism. In recent weeks, we confronted not only Milosevic, but ethnic cleansing. NATO's leaders simply refused to stand by and watch while an entire ethnic community was expelled from its home in the Alliance's front yard. By acting with unity and resolve, NATO reaffirmed its standing as an effective defender of stability and freedom in the region. It validated the strategy for modernizing the Alliance approved at the Washington Summit in April. And it underlined the importance of the leading nations on both sides of the Atlantic acting together in defense of shared interests and values. If we are as resolute in building peace as we were persistent in conflict, the crisis in Kosovo may come to be viewed as a turning point in European history. In the past, Balkan strife has torn Europe apart, as big powers took sides and made local fights their own. The Dayton accords established a new model of nations coming together to promote peace. Milosevic gambled that Kosovo would prompt a reversion to the earlier model, splitting the Alliance and opening an unbridgeable gap between Russian and the West. Thanks to a careful assessment of mutual interests in Moscow and Allied capitals, he bet wrong. Russia and NATO did not see eye to eye on the use of force against Belgrade. But both wanted to prevent the conflict from spreading, and following President Clinton's lead, we worked together to bring the conflict to an end. And now, with Russia in KFOR, we are working together to sustain the peace. More generally, the time-tested marriage of diplomacy and force played a central role from the beginning of this crisis. At Rambouillet, we sought an interim political settlement that would have protected the rights of all Kosovars. To the vast detriment of Serb interests, Milosevic rejected that agreement. But the talks helped bring the Kosovar Albanian leadership together in an unprecedented way. After NATO launched its campaign, we shifted from diplomacy backed by the threat of force to diplomacy in support of force. We worked hard to assist the frontline states in coping with the flood of refugees. We received help from countries on every continent, including those in the Muslim world. We consulted constantly with our Allies, who stayed together every step of the way. And we made full use of public diplomacy to explain NATO's objectives. Ultimately, we were able to use diplomacy to help bring the need for force to an end. Thanks to the tireless efforts of Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, we reached an understanding with Russia's envoy Victor Chernomyrdin on the terms of peace. We solicited the help of Finnish President Ahtisaari in presenting those terms to Belgrade. By then, an isolated Milosevic had no other choice but to accept. And we proceeded to gain Security Council approval for an international force with NATO at its core. Now we are in a new stage of practicing diplomacy to build peace. During the past two weeks, we have consummated agreements on an appropriate role for Russia in KFOR, KLA demilitarization, and the Southeast Europe Stability Pact. Our strategy throughout has been grounded firmly in U.S. interests. By meeting massive ethnic cleansing in the Balkans with a red light, we make it less likely that NATO will be called upon to use force in the future. And by supporting democracy and promoting human rights, we contribute to a future of stability and peace throughout Europe. This is fully consistent both with American interests, and with NATO's purpose, which is to prevent war, while defending freedom. Some hope, and others fear, that Kosovar will be a precedent for similar interventions around the globe. I would caution against any such sweeping conclusions. Every circumstance is unique. Decisions on the use of force will be made by any President on a case-by-case basis after weighing a host of factors. Moreover, the response to Milosevic would not have been possible without NATO, and NATO is a European and Atlantic, not a global, institution. We have been laboring throughout this decade to improve the world's ability to prevent and respond to humanitarian disasters, but this remains a work in progress. We conceived the Africa Crisis Response Initiative to improve indigenous capacities on that continent. We are the largest contributor to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. We are backing strongly the War Crimes Tribunal for Rwanda and the Balkans. And we have supported peace initiatives from Northern Ireland to the Middle East and Central Africa. The United States remains the world's leading force for justice and stability. But a leader cannot stand still. We need help from Congress to support the President's requests for resources to back our leadership, and to ensure that our commitments in Southeast Europe do not cause the neglect of other priorities. Not long ago, I visited a refugee camp in Macedonia. And I was never prouder to be an American than when I heard the chant ``USA, USA, USA'' and saw a little boy's handlettered sign that read, at the top, ``I Love America'' and at the bottom, ``I want to go home.'' As someone whose own family was twice forced to flee its home when I was still a little girl, I remember how it feels to be displaced. And now I know how it feels, as Secretary of State, to be able to tell that little boy and his family that--with America's help--they would go home, safely and soon. There are some who say that Americans need not care what happens to that child or to those like him. Others suggest that until we can help all the victims of ethnic violence, we should be consistent and not help any. Still other believe that by trying to bring stability to the Balkans, we are taking on a job that is simply too hard. Finally, there are some--overseas and even here at home-- who see NATO's actions as part of a master plan to impose our values on the world. Such criticisms are not original. They echo voices heard half a century ago when America led in rebuilding war-torn societies across two oceans, helped to reconcile historic enemies, elevated the world's conception of human rights, and attempted--and achieved--the impossible by supplying more than two million people in Berlin entirely by air for more than nine months. From that time to this, the United States has defended its own interests, while promoting values of tolerance and free expression that are not ``Made in America'' or confined to the West, but rather universal and fundamental to world progress and peace. It is in this spirit of melding present interests with timeless values--a spirit fully in keeping with the highest traditions of U.S. foreign policy--that we have acted in Kosovo, and that we strive now for lasting peace throughout Southeast Europe. It is to the success of this mission, and the continuation of this tradition, that I pledge my own best efforts tonight, and respectfully solicit your wise counsel and support. Thank you very much.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, let me first express my deep appreciation to my dear friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and to my new friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for taking the leadership on this most important issue. Let me identify myself, Mr. Speaker, with all of the comments across the political spectrum that we have heard on this issue today. This great magnificent and free society has many pillars on which to stand but none more important than freedom of religion and the respect for religion. And when I say ``religion,'' I mean all faiths. It was not too long ago that we stood in this chamber talking about the burning of black churches in the South. While we have made enormous progress in recent years in tolerance of all kinds, this past year there were 8,000 hate crimes committed in the United States, hate crimes motivated by intolerance, non-acceptance, dislike for people of a different gender, pigmentation, national origin, sexual orientation, and religion. Today we are here to express the united voice of this body in recommitting ourselves to the concept of religious freedom and to the absolute necessity of showing, in word and in deed, respect for all of our fellow citizens of whatever religious faith they may hold. Mr. Speaker, words of hate lead to acts of hate; and acts of hate, in their extreme form, escalate to mass murder, genocide, and holocaust. For the last 10 or 11 weeks, every night when we went home and watched our television, we were watching this incredible spectacle in 1999 of old men and old women and little children and pregnant women being driven out of Kosovo because of their Muslim faith, and we were horrified and we are horrified daily as the new evidence of brutal murder and mass rape are uncovered in hamlets and villages across Kosovo. We do not want to go down that road. This society, built on religious freedom, this society, built on the respect for the individual, must condemn with all the power at our command the monsters who have perpetrated this act of torching places of worship. No words are strong enough, Mr. Speaker, to denounce them. These are the scum of our society who are taking advantage of the freedom we all enjoy to express their hate for people of different ethnicity, religion, sex, or other aspect of their being. No action by this Congress, however weighty matters we may be dealing with, is as important in preserving our society than the action we will be taking on this resolution. We will stand united in saying such things are not acceptable and will not be accepted by the American people or the Congress of the United States.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last week the Committee on International Relations held an excellent and timely hearing on the United States relationship with Europe and the European Union. This hearing was particularly timely as it was held on the eve of the G-7 Summit in Bonn, Germany, at which United States representatives, including our President, held critical discussions with our European allies and the European Union. This hearing was the first in a series of planned committee hearings on the transatlantic relationship and its importance to United States political, economic, and security interests. Mr. Speaker, with total trade and investment between the United States and the European Union now in excess of $1 trillion annually, the EU is already our largest single trading and investment partner. The EU is also the world's largest single market, and with the establishment of the new single European currency--the euro--this market will continue to be the most important market for American firms and the most important external market for the economic health of our nation. While we tend to give greater attention to the economic and trade aspects of our relationship with the European Union, we must not ignore the growing importance of the political dimension of our relationship. The European Union is moving toward greater political involvement and it plays a key role in the coordination of member foreign policies, Mr. Speaker. The EU will play a critical role in the reconstruction of Southeastern Europe, it plays a vital role in encouraging the development of democratic political institutions, a civil society and a market economy in Central and Eastern Europe and in Russia. Furthermore, the EU has been a partner with us in encouraging political stability and economic prosperity in North Africa and the Middle East. The principal administration witness at this important hearing of the Committee on International Relations, Mr. Speaker, was Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat. He is the quintessential outstanding and extraordinary public servant in this city, who has demonstrated his commitment to the highest quality of public service in a variety of most important capacities as our ambassador to the European Union and in key sub-cabinet posts in three departments--the Department of Commerce, the Department of State, and now the President has nominated him to serve as Deputy Secretary of Treasury. Mr. Speaker, I ask that a summary of the opening statement made by Secretary Eizenstat at our recent hearing be placed in the Record. This excellent statement reflects the best current American thinking about the issues of concern regarding the United States and our relationship with Europe and the European Union. Statement of Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat to the Committee on International Relations, June 15, 1999 Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the statements that have been made by the members of the Committee. It is an honor to be here with my good friend David Aaron, the Undersecretary for Trade at the Department of Commerce. With the European Union, we share a commitment to the promotion of security, prosperity and democracy--not only in the Euro-Atlantic area but beyond it as well. It is no hyperbole to suggest that the relationship between the U.S. and the European Union may be the most important, influential and prosperous bilateral relationship of modern times. Two- way trade and investment flows are now some $1 trillion annually, supporting more than 6 million jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. One in 12 industrial jobs in the United States is in a European owned factory, and European countries are the biggest foreign investors in 41 of our 50 U.S. states. We have launched the Trans-Atlantic Economic Partnership, covering 10 broad areas to reduce existing trade barriers, improve regulatory cooperation, and establish a bilateral dialogue on multilateral trade issues in the WTO. We've agreed with the EU that the WTO should begin a new broad- based round of trade negotiations, following a structure that will yield results expeditiously in agriculture services and other areas. We've also agreed to seek permanent commitments by WTO members not to impose duties on electronic commerce transactions, an area where Secretary Aaron has had a particular impact. Rebuilding southeastern Europe There is no more vivid example of our common values and goals than the work we are doing with the EU right now in the post-conflict reconstruction of Southeastern Europe. As the confrontation in Kosovo comes to an end, together we have a big job before us. Our joint aim is to build a solid foundation for a new era of peace and stability, helping a region that has been one of the continent's most violent, become instead part of the European mainstream. We forged a new stability pact for the region. And we believe that just as we have born the lion's share of the military expenditures, it is only right that the European Union bear the lion's share of the reconstruction. And this is something that they themselves have indicated they wish to do. Enlargement of the European union The 15 member EU is now about to undertake its largest enlargement ever. It will be one of the most important challenges facing Europe in the 21st Century. I would say to my dear friend, Congressman Lantos, that when he talks about great enterprises, this expansion will be a historic opportunity to further the peaceful integration of the continent, if it is done right. The EU plans to spend, on its new members, between 2000 and 2006, the equivalent in 1999 dollars of what we spent on Western Europe through the Marshall plan. It will encourage cooperation, reinforce democracy, and reduce nationalistic and ethnic tensions. And if in the end it is successful, the European Union will be the largest single market in the world, with over 500 million citizens in an economy significantly larger than our own. Thirteen countries have applied for EU membership so far. And the European Commission is in the middle of negotiations, with six of those 13, and another five are going through initial screening. The year 2003 is the likely earliest date for excision of the first wave of candidates, and frankly the balance of writs are for a later rather than an earlier date for enlargement. Enlargement should be a net-plus for U.S. goods and services, to help the countries of Eastern and Central Europe. Nonetheless, we will insure that our commercial and economic interests are not disadvantaged. We are working both with the EU and its candidate states to prevent the erection of new barriers to trade as part of the enlargement process. The main problem concerns the interim period between now and ultimate excision. Because at excision, they will take the common external tariff of the European Union which is generally quite low. But in the interim, as tariff levels from EU products drop to zero in the candidate countries, they remain at higher levels for U.S. products to our disadvantage. We're working with the candidate countries to find suitable remedies. We're encouraging them to adopt the lower EU tariff schedules as soon as possible. Slovenia, for example, has begun to do this. The European Commission has agreed with our strategy, and excision candidates are beginning to respond. Certainly we will be economic competitors, but with our combined strength together, we'll also be able to set a global agenda supporting democracy and open markets. We share, if I may say so, more values with Europe than we do with any other region. Enlargement of the EU requires the candidate counties to conform their laws and practices to EU norms. It would almost be like saying that a new state coming into the United States has to conform of every page of the code of federal regulations. It is a mammoth job. It requires change not only in the candidate countries, but also on the part of the current member states as well. common agricultural policy The largest step is the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, or the CAP. The EU has now agreed to put a ceiling on total expenditures over the next several years. But this cannot be done without reforming its agricultural subsidies. Almost half of the EU's overall budget, over $50 billion, is earmarked for agricultural subsidies. The European Commission's modest CAP reforms are inadequate to do the job. They will complicate the process of enlargement, and they do not go nearly far enough in terms of reducing the distorting effects of the CAP on the world trading system. Other countries, including developing countries will continue to be forced to pay for European farm inefficiencies by losing sales at home and in third markets. the amsterdam treaty/a common foreign policy Historically, every enlargement of the EU has been preceded by a deepening of the level of internal cooperation. They are already slow in many cases to respond to a crisis. This will be further complicated when they expand to 21 members. With the advent of the Amsterdam Treaty on May 1, we're witnessing a dramatic shift in power. The European Parliament now has a greatly enhanced role in EU decision-making, and will enjoy equal say or co-decision with the council administrators on more than two-thirds of all EU legislation. The Amsterdam Treaty will also result, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in major changes in ways the EU conducts its foreign policy. A new high representative for its common, foreign and security policy will give the EU greater visibility on the international scene. They have selected NATO Secretary General Javier Solana as the first High Representative for their common foreign and security policy. He has been an extraordinary Secretary General of NATO and we believe he will perform equally well at the EU and we look forward to working with him. An EU with an effective foreign and security policy would be a power with shared values, and strong transatlantic ties with which we could work globally to solve problems. The EU has also chosen former Italian Prime Minister Prodi as the next president of the European Commission. We have worked well with him before, and we have great confidence in him as well. current trade issues We often let the immediacy of our current trade disputes blind us to the very real benefits that we both enjoy from access to each other's markets. But obviously there is a tough road ahead. And yet we can't allow our relationship to be defined solely by these disputes. All too often, nevertheless, the EU takes actions, such as its unilateral hush kits regulation where Ambassador Aaron did such a fabulous job of at least temporarily diverting a problem. Or it's counterproductive response to the previous WTO panels on bananas and beef from exacerbating trade tensions. It's for that reason that we have suggested an early warning system to identify such problems before they burst into full-scale disputes. We are indeed facing a tough set of trade disagreements, and we continue to hammer home the principle of fair and transparent trade rules: of the need for the EU to respect international commitments and WTO rulings, of abiding by scientific principles and not politics in making health, safety, and environmental decisions. The need for a clear and rational trading principle may be greatest in the need of biotechnology. Within a few years, virtually 100 percent of our agricultural commodity exports will either be genetically modified organisms (GMO) or mixed with GMO products. And our trade in these products must be based on a framework based on fair and transparent procedures, which address safety on a scientific and not a political basis. We, since 1994 approve some 20 GMO agricultural products. Since 1998, Europe has not approved any. There is no scientifically based governmental system to approve GMO products, therefore the European public is susceptible to ill-informed scare tactics. The EU approval process for GMOs is not transparent, not predictable, not based on scientific principles, and all too often susceptible to political interference. We've been working to break this pattern of confrontation and indeed there are leaders in Europe who recognize that an EU regulatory system drawn up in accordance with its own international trade obligations would be a boon to both business and consumers. We have a new biotech-working group to address GMO issues. The same can be said for beef hormones; where the European public is subjected to daily scare tactics which try to portray the hormone issue as a health and safety issue, when indeed there is broad scientific evidence that beef hormones are completely safe. There is no reason why American beef producers should pay the price for internal political calculations in Europe inconsistent with WTO principles. To conclude, as we look toward the future, our goal is to work together to promote our goals of security, prosperity and democracy. Together we can accomplish more than either the U.S. or the EU can by acting alone. we must work together with europe We want to work more effectively to deal with past breaking crises, to find ways of managing our disagreements before they get out of hand, and to expand areas of joint action and cooperation. We are working on just that and the hopes that we can articulate a new vision at the June 21 U.S.-EU summit in Bonn through a new Bonn declaration. This would fit in with our larger goal of using 1999 for a series of summits, NATO, OSCE and the U.S.-EU summit to strengthen the abiding European- Atlantic partnership which has been so important to maintain stability in Europe for the 20th Century, and to make sure it does the same for the 21st.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have no more 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. First I want to pay tribute to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations for his outstanding leadership on this very important issue. I also want to thank over 100 of my colleagues across the political spectrum who have chosen to cosponsor my legislation. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself fully with the remarks of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and I would like to add a few thoughts. In 1991, our ambassador to Israel, the distinguished ambassador, William Brown, wrote a letter to the Israeli Coordinator for Lebanese Affairs, and I would like to quote from that letter: ``Without the statesmanship that Israel demonstrated, I do not believe that we would be celebrating so soon the release of all American hostages.'' This is the time, Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues will recall, that there were numbers of American hostages held by various Palestinian and Arab terrorist groups and governments, and the Israeli government played a pivotal role in the release of these hostages, including Terry Anderson. It is only appropriate that we now do the same thing for Israel that they did for us. This bill calls on our State Department to do everything in its power in contacting all the relevant governments and other groups in the region to obtain the release of these three young men who have been imprisoned for 17 long years. The time is long overdue to bring their nightmare and the anguish of their families to an end. We Americans know all too well, Mr. Speaker, the bitter legacy of missing soldiers and prisoners of war. That legacy can haunt a Nation, and it interferes with the effort of building new and better relations with the countries that are involved. At a time when Israel has a new government, at a time when there is new consideration being given to Syrian-Israeli negotiations and the achievement, at long last, of peace between those two nations, I believe it is incumbent on Mr. Asaad, President of Syria, and all other leaders in the region to deal with the issue of these three young men who have been languishing in prisons for 17 years. In 1993, Mr. Speaker, Yasser Arafat conveyed to the late Prime Minister Rabin half of the dog tag of one of these young men. We have had constant indications over the years that these three young men are alive and in prison. The time has come to put an end to their incarceration and suffering and to allow their families to be reunited with them. I want to pay particular tribute, Mr. Speaker, to the parents of Zachary Baumel, Miriam and Yona Baumel, who are sitting in the gallery today. As a parent myself, I do not think I can fully appreciate the 17-year ordeal they have endured. They have worked tirelessly on behalf of their son and the other two soldiers. They have visited communities across this Nation. They have met with countless Members of this House and of the Senate. I hope and pray that at long last their heroic efforts on behalf of these three young men will come to a fruitful conclusion. I also want to applaud the efforts of the International Coalition for Missing Israeli Soldiers for spearheading the grassroots effort to bring this bill to passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the logical final outcome of hate crimes is the nightmare we see on our television sets every night in Kosovo. This past weekend, in the State of California, three synagogues were set on fire. This past year in this free society, which is based on respect for all religions, Mr. Speaker, there were over 8,000 hate crimes in the United States. Some of these were directed on the basis of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or gender. Today, I am introducing a resolution condemning this outrageous act, which resulted in the destruction of three Jewish places of worship in the Sacramento area of California. Scores of my colleagues from across the political spectrum are joining me in this resolution. I ask all of my colleagues to join and express unanimously our condemnation of these outrageous acts and provide assistance to all relevant agencies to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding me this time. I rise to congratulate and commend all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have played a leadership role on this issue. But I would like to go beyond commending them, to commend three individuals who have done extraordinarily important things on behalf of this cause of fighting prostate cancer: General Schwarzkopf, the hero of the Persian Gulf War, Senator Bob Dole, and philanthropist Michael Milken. Mr. Milken, through his Cap Cure Foundation, has devoted untold resources and unimaginable energy to dealing with prostate cancer, and I am proud to publicly recognize his significant contribution. I would also like to associate myself with the comments of my colleagues from California (Ms. Eschoo and Ms. Capps) who talked of breast and cervical cancer problems. As we deal with prostate cancer, I think we have a moral obligation to deal with the issue of breast and cervical cancer. I call on all of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to deal with both of these critical health issues affecting millions of American families.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Who is Mr. Lautenberg?

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this is the season of commencement speeches. Many of them deserve the oblivion that most of them receive. There are a few, however, that are particularly worthy of note. One outstanding exception was the commencement address given by my friend George Soros at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University on May 27th of this year. Mr. Soros has used this commencement address as an opportunity to give us his thoughtful and incisive reflections on the current conflict in Kosova and the broader significance of that conflict for the international system as the world enters the 21st century. It is ironic that the end of the Cold War has brought about a significant reduction in the threat of major confrontation involving the United States directly, but at the same time we have seen an increase in the violence of regional ethnic and religious conflicts, such as that in Kosova. George Soros has given considerable critical thought to the role of the United States in the post-Cold War era, and his thoughts are useful for all of us here in the Congress who must grapple with the question of the appropriate international role for the United States. A successful international financier and investment advisor, George Soros is a major philanthropist with a focus on encouraging the development of the infrastructure and culture necessary for democratic societies. He established the Open Society Foundation which operates a number of foundations throughout Central and Eastern Europe, South Africa, and the United States. These foundations are helping to build the infrastructure and institutions of a free and open and democratic society through supporting a variety of educational, cultural and economic restructuring activities. A native of Budapest, Hungary, and a current citizen of the United States, Mr. Soros brings a personal insight to the problems of Southeastern Europe and the world. Mr. Speaker, I submit George Soros' commencement address to be placed in the Record, and I invite my colleagues to give it thoughtful attention. Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University Commencement Speech delivered by George Soros, May 27, 1999 A commencement speech is meant to be inspirational and I am not sure whether I can deliver such a speech because I am stunned and devastated by what is happening in Kosovo. I am deeply involved in that part of the world and what is happening there has raised in my mind a lot of questions to which, frankly speaking, I don't have the answers. I feel obliged to reconsider some of my own most cherished preconceptions. I am a believer in what I call an open society which is basically a broader and more universal concept of democracy. Open society is based on the recognition that nobody has access to the ultimate truth; perfection is unattainable and therefore we must be satisfied with the next best thing; a society that holds itself open to improvement. An open society allows people with different views, identities and interests to live together in peace. An open society transcends boundaries; it allows intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states because people living in an oppressive regime often cannot defend themselves against oppression without outside intervention but the intervention must be confined to supporting the people living in a country to attain their legitimate aspirations, not to impose a particular ideology or to subjugate one state to the interests of another. These are the principles I have put into practice through my network of open society foundations. Judging by these principles, I have no doubt that Milosevic infringed the rights of the Albanian population in Kosovo. Nor do I have any doubts that the situation required outside intervention. The case for intervention is clearer in Kosovo than in most other situations of ethnic conflict because Milosevic unilaterally deprived the inhabitants of Kosovo of the autonomy that they had already enjoyed. He also broke an international agreement into which he entered in October of last year. My doubts center on the ways in which international pressure can be successfully applied. I am more aware than most people that actions have unintended consequences. Nevertheless I'm distressed by the consequences of our intervention. We have accomplished exactly the opposite of what we intended. We have accelerated the ethnic cleansing we sought to interdict. We have helped to consolidate in power the Milosevic regime and we have helped to create instability in the neighboring countries of Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania, not to mention the broader international implications such as our relationship with China. It is obvious that something has gone woefully wrong and we find ourselves in an awful quandary. I am not going to discuss how we got there and how we can extricate ourselves. I want to discuss the principle of intervening in the internal affairs of a sovereign state in order to protect its people. Because that is what we are doing and it is not working. It is easy to find fault with the way we have gone about it, but the problem that preoccupies me goes deeper. In the case of Yugoslavia we have intervened in different ways. In Bosnia we tried it with the United Nations and it didn't work. That is why in Kosovo we tried it without the United Nations and that didn't work either. We also tried it by applying economic sanctions but that too had adverse consequences. The sanctions could be broken with the help of the ruling regimes by shady businessmen who in turn became an important source of support for the ruling regimes not only in Yugoslavia but also in the neighboring countries. In short, nothing worked. And we have a similar record in Africa. The question I have to ask myself: is it possible, is it appropriate to intervene in the internal affairs of a state in the name of some general principle like human rights or open society? I did not want to consider such a question and I certainly don't want to accept no for an answer. It would be the end of the aspiration to an open society. In the absence of outside intervention oppressive regimes could perpetrate untold atrocities. Moreover, internal conflicts could easily broaden into international hostilities. In our increasingly interdependent world, there are certain kinds of behavior by sovereign states--aggression, terrorism, ethnic cleansing--that cannot be tolerated by the international community. At the same time we must recognize that the current approach does not work. We must find some better way. This will require a profound rethinking and reorganization of the way we conduct international relations. As things are now, international relations involve relations between states. How a state treats its own citizens involves relations within the state. The two relations are largely independent of each other because the states enjoy sovereignty over their territory and their inhabitants. Sovereignty is an outdated concept but it prevails. It derives from the time when kings wielded power over their subjects but in the French Revolution when the people of France overthrew their king they assumed his sovereignty. That was the birth of the modern state. Since then, there has been a gradual recognition that states must also be subject to the rule of law but international law has been slow to develop and it does not have any teeth. We have the United Nations but the UN does not work well because it is an association of states and states are guided by their interests not by universal principles, and we have the Declaration of Universal Human Rights. The principles which ought to govern the behavior of states towards their own citizens have been reasonably well- established. What is missing is an authority to enforce those principles--an authority that transcends the sovereign state. Since the sovereignty of the modern state is derived from the people, the authority that transcends the sovereign state must be derived from the people of the world. As long as we live in a world of sovereign states, the people need to exercise their authority through the states to which they belong, particularly where military action is concerned. Democratic states are supposed to carry out the will of the people. So in the ultimate analysis the development and enforcement of international law depends on the will of the people who live in democratic countries. And that is where the problem lies. People who live in democratic countries do not necessarily believe in democracy as an universal principle. They tend to be guided by self- interest, not by universal principles. They may be willing to defend democracy in their own country because they consider it to be in their own self-interest but few people care sufficiently about democracy as an abstract idea to defend it in other countries, especially when the idea is so far removed from the reality. Yet people do have some concerns that go beyond self-interest. They are aroused by pictures of atrocities. How could these concerns be mobilized to prevent the atrocities? That is the question that preoccupies me. I have attended a number of discussions about Kosovo and I was shocked to discover how vague and confused people, well- informed people, are about the reasons for our involvement. They speak of humanitarian reasons and human rights almost interchangeably. Yet the two are quite different. Human rights are political rights. When they re violated, it may lead to a humanitarian disaster, pictures on CNN that arouse people's emotions but by then it is too late. The damage is done and the intervention is often counterproductive. The humanitarian disaster could have been prevented only by protecting the political rights of the people. But to achieve this, people must take an interest in the principles of open society. Prevention cannot start early enough. To be successful it must be guided by a set of clear objectives. That is what the concept of open society can provide. Suppose that the people subscribed to the principles of an open society; how could those principles be translated into effective institutions? It would require the cooperation of democratic states. We need an authority that transcends the sovereignty of states. We have such an authority in the form of the United Nations, but the UN is not guided by the principles of open society. It is an association of states, some of which are democratic, others not, each of which is guided by its national interests. We have an association of democratic states, NATO, which did intervene in defense of democratic values, but it is a military alliance incapable of preventive action. By the time it intervenes it is too late and we have seen that its intervention can be counterproductive. It needs to be complemented by a political alliance dedicated to the promotion of open society and capable of acting both within the UN and outside it. Such an alliance would work more by providing rewards for good behavior than punishment for bad behavior. Belonging to the alliance or meeting its standards should be a rewarding experience. This would encourage voluntary compliance and defer any problems connected with the infringement of national sovereignty. The first degree of punishment would be exclusion; only if it fails need other measures be considered. The greatest rewards would be access to markets, access to finance, better treatment by the international financial institutions and, where appropriate, association with the European Union. There are a thousand little ways that diplomatic pressure can be applied; the important thing is to be clear about the objectives. I am sure that the abolition of Kosovo's autonomy in 1989 could have been reversed if the international community had been determined enough about it. In Latvia, international pressure had led to a reform of the naturalization law which could have caused conflict in Russia. In Croatia, the international community did not do enough to assure the existence of independent media. Nor is it sufficiently aroused by proposals in various Central Asian republics to introduce lifetime presidencies. We shall not be able to get rid of Milosevic by bombing but if, after the war, there is a grand plan for the reconstruction of South East Europe involving a customs union and virtual membership in the EU for those countries which are not ruled by an indicted war criminal, I am sure that the Serbs would soon get rid of Milosevic in order to qualify. A political alliance dedicated to the promotion of open society might even be able to change the way the UN functions, especially if it had a much broader membership than NATO exactly because it can act either within or without the UN. NATO could still serve as its military arm. Ironically, it is the US that stands in the way of such a political alliance. We are caught in a trap of our own making. We used to be one of the two superpowers and the leaders of the free world. We are now the sole remaining superpower and we would like to think of ourselves as the leaders of the free world. But that is where we fail, because we fail to observe one of the basic principles of the open society. Nobody has a monopoly of the truth, yet we act as if we did. We are willing to violate the sovereignty of other states in the name or universal principles but we are unwilling to accept any infringement of our town sovereignty. We are willing to drop bombs on others from high altitudes but we are reluctant to expose our own men to risk. We refuse to submit ourselves to any kind of international governance. We were one of seven countries which refused to subscribe to the International Criminal Court; the others were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, and Yemen. We do not even pay our dues to the United Nations. This kind of behavior does not lend much legitimacy to our claim to be the leaders of the free world. To reclaim that role we must radically alter our attitude to international cooperation. We cannot and should not be the policemen of the world; but the world needs a policeman. Therefore we must cooperate with like minded countries and abide by the rules that we seek to impose on others. We cannot bomb the world into submission but we cannot withdraw into isolation either. If we cannot prevent atrocities like Kosovo we must also be willing to accept body bags. I hate to end on such a somber note, but that is where we are right now.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago, the President of Hungary, His Excellency Arpad Goncz, paid an official visit to the United States. President Goncz stands with Vaclav Havel, President of the Czech Republic, as one of the pivotal leaders of post-Communist Central Europe--a man of integrity, a man of character who has provided a moral anchor as Hungary has sought to find its way in establishing a democratic society and a free market economy. Arpad Goncz graduated with a Doctor of Law degree in 1944. After the liberation of Hungary, he was active in non-Communist political groups. When the Communist Party came to power in Hungary, he was forced to earn his living as a welder and pipe fitter and later as an agricultural engineer. He supported the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, and in 1957 he was tried and sentenced to life imprisonment for his efforts in the attempt to overthrow the communist regime. His time in prison was well-spent, because that is where he learned English. After serving 6 years in prison, Arpad Goncz was released under terms of a general amnesty. He then began a career as a literary translator and free-lance writer. He translated the works of more than a hundred writers, mostly American and English authors including James Baldwin, E.L. Doctorow, William Faulkner, William Golding, Ernest Hemingway, William Styron, Susan Sontag, John Updike, Edith Wharton, President Goncz is also a playwright and novelist in his own right. When Hungary moved from a communist to a democratic government, Arpad Goncz was elected a member of the democratically elected parliament in the spring of 1990. He was chosen Speaker of Parliament on May 2, 1990, and in this position served as Interim President of the Repubic of Hungary. On August 3, 1993, Arpad Goncz was elected President of the Republic of Hungary, and on June 19, 1995, he was reelected to a five- year term as President. Mr. Speaker, as a moral influence and a voice of integrity, President Arpad Goncz has been a pivotal figure in the democratic transformation of Hungary. It is most appropriate that he was highly honored during his recent visit to the United States. Mr. Speaker, I submit the speech at the State Dinner honoring President Goncz by President Clinton and the response of President Goncz to be placed in the Record. Toast of President Clinton The President of the United States: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the White House. And a special welcome to President and Mrs. Goncz and members of the Hungarian delegation. Exactly 150 years ago, in 1849, a young congressman from Illinois, serving his first and only term in the U.S. House of Representatives, offered a resolution supporting the Hungarian people's struggle for independence and democracy. At that time, the leader of the Hungarian freedom movement, of course, was Lajos Kossuth. The congressman was Abraham Lincoln. The bonds between our citizens, based not only on the large number of distinguished Hungarian Americans in our country, but also on our shared aspirations for freedom and democracy, have very deep roots. I would like to say a special word of thanks to Congressman Tom and Annette Lantos, and others who have helped them, because they are responsible for the fact that a bust of Kossuth now stands in the Rotunda of our Capitol. Ralph Waldo Emerson called him ``the angel of freedom.'' He was only the second non-American--Lafayette being the first-- to address both Houses of Congress. Crowds greeted him wherever he went. He was a true American hero. Mr. President, like Kossuth, you taught yourself English while you were in prison--at a time when you had just escaped a death sentence and faced a life term, because you stood for liberty. Later, you translated the works of many great writers: Edith Wharton, Thomas Wolfe, William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway, Arthur Miller, James Baldwin, John Updike, Alice Walker. And at least two I think are here tonight-- William Styron and Susan Sontag. These translations offered Hungarians a window on the West and earned you many admirers at home. This work is just one part, but it is a vital part, of your contribution to ending the division of Europe. I even noted in preparing for this evening that you translated into Hungarian President Bush's 1988 campaign biography, ``Looking Forward.'' Now by the time Al Gore and I published our book, ``Putting People First,'' in 1992, you were already President of Hungary and, unfortunately, too busy to translate this profoundly important work. At least I choose to believe that is the reason you did not choose to translate it. In this decade your own works have been translated and published in English, your plays performed in the United States. They are a brave set of explorations of political conflict and war, freedom and betrayal, the struggle for daily survival and dignity in the face of adversity. Americans have absorbed these works as we have watched you lead your nation, deepening freedom there, and promoting human rights and ethnic tolerance around the world, and especially in your own region. The only Hungarian head of state to make an official visit to Romania in this century, you told the joint session of Parliament there that ethnic minorities enrich their nations and ``form a valuable connective link in strengthening relations'' between nations. Your vision of people living together and nations living together, resolving differences peacefully, drawing strength from their diversity, treating all people with equal dignity--this will form the basis of a better future for Europe and the world. It is at the heart of what we have been trying to do in our efforts to reverse ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and to build a Southeastern Europe in which all people can live together in dignity and freedom. Now, Mr. President, normally when I propose a toast to a visiting head of state, I say something like, ``cheers.'' I have been advised by the State Department that the Hungarian word for ``cheers'' is--and I want to quote from the memo I got--``practically impossible to pronounce correctly.'' I have accepted their considered judgment. So, instead, I would like to salute you and Mrs. Goncz with the words that greeted Kossuth on streamers all across New York City on the day he arrived in America--Isten Hozta. ``Welcome.'' I ask all of you to join me in a toast to President and Mrs. Goncz, and to the people of Hungary. Thank you very much. Toast of President Goncz The President of Hungary: Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton, dear friends. Back home in my own country I have the privilege of speaking in my own native language. It would be becoming to speak English here, but there is one thing I learned when I was a writer--that lesson I learned, that if you cannot express yourself in an adequate way in that language, then you'd rather not deliver speeches in that language. I do apologize for not speaking English, because eventually I might end up as Kossuth did when he was here. As it was mentioned, he learned English also in prison, as I did. And he had excellent rhetoric abilities. And after one of the enlightening speeches he made here in America, two listeners started to whisper between each other, ``I never thought that English was so close to Hungarian.'' Now, this time, I would like to spare you that experience. My friend speaks better English than I do. Mr. President mentioned something about my past as a translator. I learned English in the prison through the works of Kennedy. First, I translated the speeches of Kennedy. This was something like lawful--translated for the higher authorities in the party. It was strictly confidential. I am terribly sorry that President Kennedy never had the chance to see himself how authentic the Hungarian translation was. But I'd like to come back on the events of today. Officially, I was in the White House in an official capacity in April 1993. At that time I met the President, and there were some other heads of state also here. And then when I looked around, I had the wind of youthfulness, optimism, and an air of determination. Today, I experienced the same: a determined leadership that decides the fate of the world; responsibility and profound humanity. We have had long discussions today. It is a God-given gift that my visit that had been prepared for months was realized today--all of these days going to be decisive. This is a crucial day when the Kosovo crisis is raising its beak and it's going to come to completion. We have had a long discussion with Mr. President, not only the two of us. But if I were to characterize the meeting, I would say that it was not negotiations, diplomatic negotiations, but thinking together. And this was the first time I really felt, genuinely, that the two countries are allies, and a real alliance is characterized by identical values and also that you approach the problems to be solved from the same angle. Even during the air campaign we tried to find the man, a human being in that. And we fully agreed that the peace of Europe is unthinkable without the peace in the Balkans. And without the understanding and the cooperation of the people in the Balkans, it is inconceivable to have peace in that region. The discussions we have had today will have a very significant imprint not only because of the political implications, but also because I made a great acquaintance of a genuine, real man. During my presidency we have met about four or five times, but we never had a chance before to think together about the course of the world. We did that today. And we also found that it is the human being that is the common denominator: the man in Kosovo, the Serbian man; let me tell you, also the Hungarian man, who has got responsibility for the Serbs, as well, after having lived together with them for hundreds and hundreds of years. And if one day the Democratic leadership in Serbia is created, we Hungarians are ready to share our experience in building democracy with the Serbian people, with the Serbian leadership. And we are prepared to do what we have done with other neighboring countries already. We are going to tell them not only what we have done correctly and well, what we are going to tell them where we made a mistake, where we made an error, because it's a matter of course that sometimes one makes mistakes. But if through good advice you can avoid at least one mistake, then it was worth it. We are prepared to extend a helping hand to a democratic Serbian government, to the Serbian people, because we know what bombing means from our own experience. We know what has to be restored--bridges, oil refineries, infrastructure, but primarily and foremost, the belief of the people in the future--the faith in humanity, belief in the willingness of the people to help each other. And if we manage to help all the wounds that were acquired during the war since 1992, and we manage to resolve all the hatred, which may take even two generations, then we have to give them help and assistance to make the first first. It was a gratifying and a good feeling to me to have understanding between the two sides. Because you can feed in information about the amount of bombs you want to drop; you can feed in costs; but there is one thing you cannot feed in, in a computer--the past of a nation, the mentality of the people, the moral feelings, eventual solidarity or hostility. I can see that the American leadership is ready to consider that, as well, after the success of the air campaign and, perhaps, even more so, afterwards. The serious negotiations we have had here in Washington, D.C., I will take that home with me as one of the greatest experiences in my life. First, because I was really convinced that it is possible for a big country and a small country to become real allies on the basis of equality. And I do hope, Mr. President, you're not going to misunderstand me if I say, I am taking with me the experience of a new friendship, as well, with me. Perhaps I cannot say anymore than that. If you want, I can tell you all the political slogans that you know by heart here, but I suppose these few things are a lot more worthy. For the Hungarians, for the Serbs, for the Kosovars, for the whole of Central Europe, I do hope, out of the bottom of my heart, that all the generals of NATO--and perhaps it will all help us to understand the events and developments of our days. Once again, I apologize for speaking in Hungarian, but I suppose it was better to tell that in Hungarian than mumbling it in English. Thank you for listening to me.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, is chivalry dead in this House?

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today at the Geneva Conference of the International Labor Organization, President Clinton became the first President of the United States to address the International Labor Organization (ILO) in Geneva. In this particularly excellent address, the President reaffirmed in the strongest terms the commitment of the United States to the ILO and to the protection of international labor rights. The ILO--an organization established in the aftermath of World War I and affiliated with the United Nations after its creation in 1945--is in the forefront of the fight to assure that workers have the right to organize, the right to bargain collectively, the right to a safe work place, and the rights to speak out and to assemble in the defense and protection of these rights. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton also called attention in particular to the fight of the United States against abusive child labor. In far too many places around, children are forced to work unconscionably long hours, which interferes with their education and limits their future opportunities. More serious is the exploitation of children in pornography and prostitution, which happens in many places around the globe. Children are recruited by some governments and by some political movements to serve in military conflicts, and we must work to end that pernicious practice. Children also work in hazardous and dangerous occupations where they risk their lives, their health, and their future. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the request of the President to the Congress to provide $25 million in funding to help create a new arm of the ILO to work with developing countries to put basic labor standards in place to assure workers in these countries basic health and safety protections as well as assuring them the right to organize. I also urge support of the President's request to the Congress for $10 million to strengthen U.S. bilateral support for governments seeking to raise their own fundamental labor standards. I also urge support for the President's requests for funding of programs to reduce child labor. Mr. Speaker, I ask that President Clinton's outstanding address to the International Labor Organization be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to give thoughtful attention to his excellent remarks. Remarks by the President to the International Labor Organization Conference The President. Thank you very much, Director General Somavia, for your fine statement and your excellent work. Conference President Mumuni, Director General Petrovsky, ladies and gentlemen of the ILO: It is a great honor for me to be here today with, as you have noticed, quite a large American delegation. I hope you will take it as a commitment of the United States to our shared vision, and not simply as a burning desire for us to visit this beautiful city on every possible opportunity. I am delighted to be here with Secretary Albright and Secretary of Labor Herman; with my National Economic Advisor Gene Sperling, and my National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. We're delighted to be joined by the President of the American Federation of Labor, the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, and several of the leaders of the U.S. labor movement; and with Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa who is the foremost advocate in the United States of the abolition of child labor. I am grateful to all of them for coming with me, and to the First Lady and our daughter for joining us on this trip. And I thank you for your warm reception of her presence here. It is indeed an honor for me to be the first American President to speak before the ILO in Geneva. It is long overdue. There is no organization that has worked harder to bring people together around fundamental human aspirations, and no organization whose mission is more vital for today and tomorrow. The ILO, as the Director General said, was created in the wake of the devastation of World War I as part of a vision to provide stability to a world recovering from war, a vision put forward by our President, Woodrow Wilson. He said then, ``While we are fighting for freedom we must see that labor is free.'' At a time when dangerous doctrines of dictatorship were increasingly appealing the ILO was founded on the realization that injustice produces, and I quote, ``unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperiled.'' Over time the organization was strengthened, and the United States played its role, starting with President Franklin Roosevelt and following through his successors and many others in the United States Congress, down to the strong supporters today, including Senator Harkin and the distinguished senior Senator from New York, Patrick Moynihan. For half a century, the ILO has waged a struggle of rising prosperity and widening freedom, from the shipyards of Poland to the diamond mines of South Africa. Today, as the Director General said, you remain the only organization to bring together governments, labor unions and business, to try to unite people in common cause--the dignity of work, the belief that honest labor, fairly compensated, gives meaning and structure to our lives; the ability of every family and all children to rise as far as their talents will take them. In a world too often divided, this organization has been a powerful force for unity, justice, equality and shared prosperity. For all that, I thank you. Now, at the edge of a new century, at the dawn of the Information Age, the ILO and its vision are more vital than ever--for the world is becoming a much smaller and much, much more interdependent place. Most nations are linked to the new dynamic, idea- driven, technology-powered, highly competitive international economy. The digital revolution is a profound, powerful and potentially democratizing force. It can empower people and nations, enabling the wise and far-sighted to develop more quickly and with less damage to the environment. It can enable us to work together across the world as easily as if we were working just across the hall. Competition, communications and more open markets spur stunning innovations and make their fruits available to business and workers worldwide. Consider this: Every single day, half a million air passengers, 1.5 billion e-mail messages and $1.5 trillion cross international borders. We also have new tools to eradicate diseases that have long plagued humanity, to remove the threat of global warming and environmental destruction, to lift billions of people into the first truly global middle class. Yet, as the financial crisis of the last two years has shown, the global economy with its churning, hyperactivity, poses new risks, as well, of disruption, dislocation and division. A financial crisis in one country can be felt on factory floors half a world away. The world has changed, much of it for the better, but too often our response to its new challenges has not changed. Globalization is not a proposal or a policy choice, it is a fact. But how we respond to it will make all the difference. We cannot dam up the tides of economic change anymore than King Knute could still the waters. Nor can we tell our people to sink or swim on their own. We must find a new way--a new and democratic way--to maximize market potential and social justice, competition and community. We must put a human face on the global economy, giving working people everywhere a stake in its success, equipping them all to reap its rewards, providing for their families the basic conditions of a just society. All nations must embrace this vision, and all the great economic institutions of the world must devote their creativity and energy to this end. Last May, I had the opportunity to come and speak to the World Trade Organization and stress that as we fight for open markets, it must open its doors to the concerns of working people and the environment. Last November, I spoke to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank and stressed that we must build a new financial architecture as modern as today's markets, to tame the cycles of boom and bust in the global economy as we can now do in national economies; to ensure the integrity of international financial transactions; and to expand social safety nets for the most vulnerable. Today, I say to you that the ILO, too, must be ready for the 21st century, along the lines that Director General Somavia has outlined. Let me begin by stating my firm belief that open trade is not contrary to the interest of working people. Competition and integration lead to stronger growth, more and better jobs, more widely shared gains. Renewed protectionism in any of our nations would lead to a spiral of retaliation that would diminish the standard of living for working people everywhere. Moreover, a failure to expand trade further could choke off innovation and diminish the very possibilities of the information economy. No, we need more trade, not less. Unfortunately, working people the world over do not believe this. Even in the United States, with the lowest unemployment rate in a generation, where exports accounted for 30 percent of our growth until the financial crisis hit Asia, working people strongly resist new market-opening measures. There are many reasons. In advanced countries the benefits of open trade outweigh the burdens. But they are widely spread, while the dislocations of open trade are painfully concentrated. In all countries, the premium the modern economy places on skills leaves too many hard-working people behind. In poor countries, the gains seem too often to go to the already wealthy and powerful, with little or no rise in the general standard of living. And the international organizations charged with monitoring and providing for rules of fair trade, and enforcement of them, seem to take a very long time to work their way to the right decision, often too late to affect the people who have been disadvantaged. So as we press for more open trade, we must do more to ensure that all our people are lifted by the global economy. As we prepare to launch a new global round of trade talks in Seattle in November, it is vital that the WTO and the ILO work together to advance that common goal. We clearly see that a thriving global economy will grow out of the skills, the idea, the education of millions of individuals. In each of our nations and as a community of nations, we must invest in our people and lift them to their full potential. If we allow the ups and downs of financial crises to divert us from investing in our people, it is not only those citizens or nations that will suffer--the entire world will suffer from their lost potential. It is clear that when nations face financial crisis, they need the commitment and the expertise not only of the international financial institutions, they need the ILO as well. The IMF, the World Bank and WTO, themselves, should work more closely with the ILO, and this organization must be willing and able to assume more responsibility. The lesson of the past two years is plain: Those nations with strong social safety nets are better able to weather the storms. Those strong safety nets do not just include financial assistance and emergency aid for poorest people, they also call for the empowerment of the poorest people. This weekend in Cologne, I will join my partners in the G-8 in calling for a new focus on stronger safety nets within nations and within the international community. We will also urge improved cooperation between the ILO and the international financial institutions in promoting social protections and core labor standards. And we should press forward to lift the debt burden that is crushing many of the poorest nations. We are working to forge a bold agreement to more than triple debt relief for the world's poorest nations and to target those savings to education, health care, child survival and fighting poverty. I pledge to work to find the resources so we can do our part and contribute our share toward an expanded trust fund for debt relief. Yet, as important as our efforts to strengthen safety nets and relieve debt burdens are, for citizens throughout the world to feel that they truly have a hand in shaping their future they must know the dignity and respect of basic rights in the workplace. You have taken a vital step toward lifting the lives of working people by adopting the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work last year. The document is a blueprint for the global economy that honors our values--the dignity of work, an end to discrimination, an end to forced labor, freedom of association, the right of people to organize and bargain in a civil and peaceful way. These are not just labor rights, they're human rights. They are a charter for a truly modern economy. We must make them an everyday reality all across the world. We advance these rights first by standing up to those who abuse them. Today, one member nation, Burma stands in defiance of the ILO's most fundamental values and most serious findings. The Director General has just reported to us that the flagrant violation of human rights persists, and I urge the ILO governing body to take definite steps. For Burma is out of step with the standards of the world community and the aspirations of its people. Until people have the right to shape their destiny we must stand by them and keep up the pressure for change. We also advance core labor rights by standing with those who seek to make them a reality in the workplace. Many countries need extra assistance to meet these standards. Whether it's rewriting inadequate labor laws, or helping fight discrimination against women and minorities in the workplace, the ILO must be able to help. That is why in the balanced budget I submitted to our Congress this year I've asked for $25 million to help create a new arm of the ILO, to work with developing countries to put in place basic labor standards--protections, safe work places, the right to organize. I ask other governments to join us. I've also asked for $10 million from our Congress to strengthen U.S. bilateral support for governments seeking to raise such core labor standards. We have asked for millions of dollars also to build on our voluntary anti-sweat shop initiative to encourage the many innovative programs that are being developed to eliminate sweat shops and raise consumer awareness of the conditions in which the clothes they wear and the toys they buy for their children are made. But we must go further, to give life to our dream of an economy that lifts all our people. To do that, we must wipe from the Earth the most vicious forms of abusive child labor. Every single day tens of millions of children work in conditions that shock the conscience. There are children chained to often risky machines; children handling dangerous chemicals; children forced to work when they should be in school, preparing themselves and their countries for a better tomorrow. Each of our nations must take responsibility. Last week, at the inspiration of Senator Tom Harkin, who is here with me today, I directed all agencies of the United States government to make absolutely sure they are not buying any products made with abusive child labor. But we must also act together. Today, the time has come to build on the growing world consensus to ban the most abusive forms of child labor--to join together and to say there are some things we cannot and will not tolerate. We will not tolerate children being used in pornography and prostitution. We will not tolerate children in slavery or bondage. We will not tolerate children being forcibly recruited to serve in armed conflicts. We will not tolerate young children risking their health and breaking their bodies in hazardous and dangerous working conditions for hours unconscionably long--regardless of country, regardless of circumstance. These are not some archaic practices out of a Charles Dickens novel. These are things that happen in too many places today. I am proud of what is being done at your meeting. In January, I said to our Congress and the American people in the State of the Union address, that we would work with the ILO on a new initiative to raise labor standards and to conclude a treaty to ban abusive child labor everywhere in the world. I am proud to say that the United States will support your convention. After I return home I will send it to the U.S. Senate for ratification, and I ask all other countries to ratify it, as well. We thank you for achieving a true breakthrough for the children of the world. We thank the nations here represented who have made genuine progress in dealing with this issue in their own nations. You have written an important new chapter in our effort to honor our values and protect our children. Passing this convention alone, however, will not solve the problem. We must also work aggressively to enforce it. And we must address root causes, the tangled pathology of poverty and hopelessness that leads to abusive child labor. Where that still exists it is simply not enough to close the factories where the worst child labor practices occur. We must also ensure that children then have access to schools and their parents have jobs. Otherwise, we may find children in even more abusive circumstances. That is why the work of the International Program for the Elimination of Child Labor is so important. With the support of the United States, it is working in places around the world to get children out of business of making fireworks, to help children move from their jobs as domestic servants, to take children from factories to schools. Let me cite just one example of the success being achieved, the work being done to eliminate child labor from the soccer ball industry in Pakistan. Two years ago, thousands of children under the age of 14 worked for 50 companies stitching soccer balls full-time. The industry, the ILO and UNICEF joined together to remove children from the production of soccer balls and give them a chance to go to school, and to monitor the results. Today, the work has been taken up by women in 80 poor villages in Pakistan, giving them new employment and their families new stabilities. Meanwhile, the children have started to go to school, so that when they come of age, they will be able to do better jobs raising the standard of living of their families, their villages and their nation. I thank all who were involved in this endeavor and ask others to follow their lead. I am pleased that our administration has increased our support for IPEC by tenfold. I ask you to think what could be achieved by a full and focused international effort to eliminate the worst forms of child labor. Think of the children who would go to school, whose lives would open up, whose very health would flower, freed of the crushing burden of dangerous and demeaning work, given back those irreplaceable hours of childhood for learning and playing and living. By giving life to core labor standards, by acting effectively to lift the burden of debt, by putting a more human face on the world trading system and the global economy, by ending the worst forms of child labor, we will be giving our children the 21st century they deserve. These are hopeful times. Previous generations sought to redeem the rights of labor in a time of world war and organized tyranny. We have a chance to build a world more prosperous, more united, more humane than ever before. In so doing, we can fulfill the dreams of the ILO's founders, and redeem the struggles of those who fought and organized, who sacrificed and, yes, died--for freedom, equality, and justice in the workplace. It is our great good fortune that in our time we have been given the golden opportunity to make the 21st century a period of abundance and achievement for all. Because we can do that, we must. It is a gift to our children worthy of the millennium. Thank you very much.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, recently I introduced in the House The Human Rights Information Act (H.R. 1625). This legislation has already found strong bipartisan support with over 50 of our distinguished colleagues joining as original cosponsors of this bill. When our legislation was introduced, prominent human rights leaders and victims of human rights abuses joined us at a press conference announcing the legislation. Their comments about the Human Rights Information Act and their personal and professional insights regarding this legislation are particularly helpful. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the statements these human rights leaders made regarding the Human Rights Information Act be placed in the Record. These outstanding statements are by Dr. William F. Schultz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA; Adriana Portillo- Bartow, a Guatemalan mother whose eldest two daughters were kidnapped and disappeared and have not been seen for the past 17 years; Sister Dianna Ortiz, a Roman Catholic nun who was abducted, tortured and repeatedly raped by members of the Guatemalan security forces; and Carlos M. Salinas, the Advocacy Director for Latin America and the Caribbean of Amnesty International. Statement of Dr. William F. Schultz, Executive Director, Amnesty International USA Good afternoon. I'm Dr. William F. Schultz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA. I join my esteemed colleagues today to support legislation that addresses the tragic legacy of political violence: torture, assassinations, ``disappearances,'' and massacres. This legislation will put criminals behind bars and help families heal from their devastating losses at the hands of brutal torturers and thugs. Over the past few decades, we witnessed immense suffering in Guatemala and Honduras. The fierce counterinsurgency campaign by Guatemalan military governments beginning in the 1960s left 200,000 dead or ``disappeared'' according to the Guatemalan Truth Commission. The campaign became one of a ``scorched earth strategy'' in which hundreds of villages were wiped out in what the Trust Commission called acts of genocide. Thousands of men, women and children were killed-- often after brutal torture or in more than 600 wholesale massacres, according to the Commission. Thousands more were ``disappeared''--never to be seen again. The politically-driven violence in Honduras during the 1980s resulted from a deliberate strategy by the government and military to treat non-combatant civilians as military targets. This ``dirty war'' meant torture, assassination and ``disappearance'' for student activists, teachers, journalists, trade unionists, human rights lawyers and leftist politicians. Out of the ashes of this bloody history has risen legislation vital to the promotion and protection of human rights--not only in Honduras and Guatemala but in every country in the world. The Human Rights Information Act orders the declassification or release of U.S. government documents about human rights violations when the U.S. receives a request from a bona fide truth commission or judicial authority. It will give survivors of torture and ``disappearances'' information about who was responsible for their abuse and the reasons why they were targeted. It also will allow family members to recover the remains of their ``disappeared'' loved ones. Amnesty International is proud to support the Human Rights Information Act and our activists are ready to mobilize for its passage. Last year, we brought over 100,000 petitions and letters to Congress--and we will bring 100,000 more this year, if need be. I believe that every American watching the Kosovo crisis unfold would support this Act as a means to ensure justice for the thousands of refugees we see on our television screens each day. There are three compelling reasons why Congress must pass this Act. First, the Human Rights Information Act is profoundly pro- family. The Act will help families torn apart by torture, assassination or ``disappearances'' heal and find some measure of closure in the wake of brutality. Second, the Human Rights Information Act will fight crime. The perpetrators of human rights violations are responsible not for dozens or even hundreds of brutalities but for tens of thousands of crimes against humanity. As a great forensic anthropologist Dr. Clyde Snow said, ``[t]he great mass murderers of our time have accounted for no more than a few hundred victims. In contrast, states that have chosen to murder their own citizens can usually count their victims by the carload lot. As for motive, the state has no peers, for it will kill its victim for a careless word, a fleeting thought, or even a poem.'' Assassins, torturers, those who order the brutalities and those who cover them up, however, are rarely punished, sometimes amnestied and often never prosecuted. Successful prosecutions will punish and put behind bars human rights violators who may still be involved in criminal activity. And it will send an unequivocal message that human rights violations will not be tolerated. Third, the Human Rights Information Act will strengthen democracy. It will deter future violators and strengthen the rule of law. It will tell the world that no one is above the law and it will restore citizens' confidence in their legal institutions. The wounds from atrocities committed in Guatemala, Honduras and many other countries cannot heal until the whole truth about human rights violations is revealed. Families and survivors need to know--and have the right to know--who ordered the killings, why their loved ones were tortured and killed, and where to find their ``disappeared'' loved ones. If simply telling the whole truth, as the Human Rights Information Act will do, helps thousands of families heal from some of the worst crimes known to humanity, how can we not reveal it? Statement of Ms. Adriana Portillo-Bartow, a Guatemalan Mother My name is Adriana Portillo-Bartow and I am a survivor of the war in Guatemala. I am also a mother who for the last 17 years has had to live without knowing the truth about the whereabouts of her two oldest daughters, kidnapped and disappeared by Guatemalan security forces in 1981. My daughters Rosaura and Glenda, 10 and 9 years old at the time of their disappearance, were detained, together with my 70 year old father, my step-mother, one of my sisters-in-law, and my 18 month old sister, on September 11, 1981, by a large group of military and police forces. They have never been seen or heard from since. I waited 15 years for the appropriate political conditions to exist in Guatemala so I could begin the search for the truth about the whereabouts of my disappeared family. I have been back to Guatemala eight times since December 1996, when the Final Peace Accord for a Firm and Lasting Peace was signed. Eight trips to Guatemala I have made in my pursuing of the truth, without any results. On each of my trips I have met with the Guatemalan Presidential Human Rights Commission, I have met with the Guatemalan Human Rights Ombudsman Office, I have met with many non governmental human rights organizations. I have met with U.S. Embassy officials. I have even tried pursuing the truth through the Guatemalan judicial system, which everybody knows does not work. The case of my disappeared family is Illustrative case #87 in the Historical Clarification Commission's report ``Guatemala: Memory of Silence''. And no one has been able to help me, or has wanted to help me. Because of that, now, more than ever, I am hunted by the memories of my disappeared father, of my little daughters, and of my other relatives. For the past seventeen years I have not slept, unless through the use of artificial means, because I am afraid of waking up to a nightmare of my disappeared children being eaten by dogs and vultures. Some days I am hunted by images of their bodies abandoned in shallow graves in a clandestine cemetery, somewhere in Guatemala. Other days I am hunted by the possibility of my little daughters and sister having been given up for adoption--illegally--to a family in a foreign country. When will I be able to leave my torment behind? When will I be free from the ongoing torture it means for me not knowing what became of my daughters? When will I be able to be at peace with myself? Only the day I find out the truth about what happened to my disappeared family. Only the day I am able to recover their remains for a proper and dignified burial. The passing of the Human Rights Information Act by Congress is of critical importance to the relatives of the disappeared in Guatemala. It can offer people who find themselves in the position I am now the real possibility of learning the truth about the whereabouts of their disappeared relatives. It can offer mothers like me an end to the painful and everlasting effects of the most sophisticated form of torture; the disappearance of our children. Furthermore, it can offer mothers like me the possibility of family reunification if our children survived--and if they didn't, the opportunity to bury them and mourn their loss in a healthy and dignified manner. President Clinton acknowledged on March 10 of this year, while in Guatemala, that the involvement of the United States in the horrors that took place during the war was wrong, and that it had been a mistake that must not be repeated again. He said that the United States must and will continue to support the peace and reconciliation process in Guatemala. Truth and Justice are the foundation of Peace. The passing of the Human Rights Information Act by Congress is a very concrete step that can be taken, for the United States to truly play a historical role in the process towards reconciliation and an everlasting peace in Guatemala. As a Guatemalan, and as the mother and sister of three little girls that disappeared during the long war in Guatemala I feel that the contribution of the United States to the suffering of the Guatemalan people constitute a moral obligation to assist all of us, relatives of the disappeared, in our search for the truth about the whereabouts of our loved ones. Only the day the full truth of what happened is known, and dealt with, will we be able to say that the suffering the Guatemalan people has endured for so many years is finally a tragedy of the past. Only the day we know the full truth will we be sure that the ``mistake'' President Clinton referred to will not be repeated again--in Guatemala or in any other country of the world.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing the achievements of Central European University (CEU), one of the newest and most significant forces for intellectual and economic progress in Eastern Europe. As I learned during a recent visit to the University, CEU's growth and influence are making an important contribution to the future of Hungary, the Czech Republic, and the other young democracies to the east of the Danube River. Ten years ago, as nearly half a century of Soviet domination crumbled across the expanse of Central and Eastern Europe, a small collection of concerned intellectuals met in Dubrovnik in the former Yugoslavia to discuss the future of liberal education and that region. After decades of censorship and suppression at the whim of communist governments, they hoped to create a new center of academic freedom for citizens of all ideological and ethnic backgrounds. The labors of these far-sighted men and women led to the birth of Central European University, which has rapidly developed into one of Europe's leading centers of higher education. Central European University, which claimed 100 students in its first year of existence (1991), now has an enrollment of 660 students from over 35 countries. CEU's faculty also reflects this diversity, featuring 60 professors from 26 countries and a host of prestigious visiting educators from top-level institutions throughout Europe and North America. These leading scholars help to foster an environment free of the political and philosophical rigidity of Eastern Europe's communist past, allowing young minds to flourish. CEU's remarkable renaissance can be attributed principally to the generosity of George Soros, a Hungarian immigrant who came to the United States as a refuge from Nazism. He has become one of America's most successful and respected financial leaders, and he has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to important social and economic causes around the world. The Open Society Institute, founded by Soros to promote freedom in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, has immeasurably advanced the social and political climate in the newly free countries in this region. The Central European University is one of many pro- education, pro-openness, and pro-liberty projects funded by George Soros since the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Mr. Speaker, I invite all of my colleagues to join me commending this outstanding philanthropist for all he has done to further these vital objectives during the past decade. Mr. Speaker, last March I had the opportunity to attend the Central European University's conference entitled ``Between Past and Future''. This gathering featured a wealth of insight opinions from leaders including former anti-communist dissident and current Budapest Mayor Gabor Demszky, Czech Deputy Foreign Minister and human rights activist Martin Palous, and numerous other authorities on the future of Central and Easter Europe. Respected media figures--among them New York times journalist R.W. Apple, Time magazine political correspondent James Carney, and NBC news correspondent Claire Shipman--also participated. The conference addressed some of the region's most pressing issues, ranging from ethnic nationalism to political stability in Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Macedonia, and other countries in the area. The presentations and discussions greatly impressed me, as did CEU's wisdom in organizing this excellent event. It is my hope that Central European University will serve as a role model for intellectual openness and academic excellence throughout all of the nations formerly dominated by the Soviet Union. I am confident that the CEU will help to mold a new generation of citizens encumbered by the social and cultural restrictions forced upon their parents and grandparents, young leaders who are intellectually and ideologically prepared to build new societies atop the moral foundation on liberty and freedom that we Americans has cherished for centuries. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the wonderful accomplishments and unlimited promise of Central European University.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in supporting H.R. 973--the Security Assistance Act of 1999--a bipartisan bill that contains many important initiatives that will enhance our national security and promote our national interests. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the provisions in this legislation that require the President to seek to negotiate a multilateral Code of Conduct for arms sales, which would take into account when deciding whether to sell weapons such issues as human rights, the state of democracy and involvement of the government seeking to purchase arms in military aggression. Mr. Speaker, multilateral action is the only approach that will work. Unilateral American restrictions on arms sales deals only with a part of the problem, and non-American suppliers of arms will simply move in to fill the gap. I want to comment our distinguished colleague from Georgia, Ms. McKinney, and our distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson, for their contribution to these provisions. Another provision that I want to note, Mr. Speaker, is the authority this legislation includes for the President to waive the so-called ``Glenn Amendment'' sanctions against India and Pakistan for one additional year. The Administration--under the able and dedicated leadership of Deputy Secretary Strobe Talbot and Assistant Secretary Rick Inderfurth--has made significant progress with India and Pakistan, and I am delighted that we have seen important progress in coming to grips with the problems of nuclear non-proliferation. The nuclear threat in South Asia remains a serious problem, Mr. Speaker, and the Administration needs the flexibility and negotiating leverage which the waiver authority provides. I strongly support the inclusion of this provision. Mr. Speaker, I also support the provisions of this legislation which increase the penalties for violation of the export control regulations under the Export Administration Act of 1979, and the provisions which strengthen the enforcement of the Arms Export Control Act. This will increase the penalties on American companies selling dual-use items to rogue nations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya and North Korea in violation of United States export controls. As my colleagues know, strengthening our export administration provisions through increasing penalties for violation of these regulations was strongly recommended in the report on ``U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China'' issued by the Select Committee under the leadership of Congressman Chris Cox of California and Congressman Norm Dicks of Washington. I also support, Mr. Speaker, this bill's authorization of the sale and transfer of American naval vessels that are no longer required by our navy. These ships can support the security of countries in which we have a political and a national security interest. Furthermore, these sales will produce some $90 million for the United States Treasury, whereas decommissioning these vessels will be a significant cost to the American taxpayers. The legislation also authorizes an increase in the War Reserve Stockpile for our allies, South Korea and Thailand, and authorizes the Secretary of Defense to transfer such items to these countries in return for certain concessions to be negotiated. This provision is in our national security interest. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this legislation.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced comprehensive domestic child labor reform legislation--H.R. 2119, ``The Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act.'' I am delighted to report that this legislation has been cosponsored by 57 other Members of the Congress, including my distinguished fellow Californian, Congressman Tom Campbell of San Jose, and our distinguished colleague, Congressman John Porter of Illinois, who is Co-Chairman with me of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. It is a shocking fact, Mr. Speaker, that the occupational injury rate for children and teens in this country is more than twice as high as it is for adults. A young person is killed on the job in this country every five days. A young worker is injured on the job every 40 seconds. These deaths and these injuries to our nation's children are totally unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, as America prepares to enter the 21st Century, we must ensure that our children work under safe conditions. We must ensure that the work available to them does not limit their educational opportunities, but helps them achieve healthy and productive lives. The Young American Workers' Bill of Rights will help to make certain that job opportunities available to our young people are safer and do not interfere with their education. Unfortunately, the exploitation of child labor in our country is not a thing of the past. It is a national problem that continues to jeopardize the health, education, and lives of many of our nation's children and teenagers. In farm fields and in fast-food restaurants all over this country, employers are breaking the law by hiring under-age children. Many of these youth put in long, hard hours and often work under dangerous conditions. Our legislation seeks to eliminate the all- too-common exploitation of children--working long hours late into the night while school is in session, and working under hazardous conditions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2119--The ``Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act''--addresses two major aspects of child labor: the deaths and serious injuries suffered by our young workers and the negative impact which working excessive hours during school can have on a child's education. The legislation establishes new, tougher penalties for willful violations of child labor laws that result in the death or serious bodily injury to a child. Not only does the bill increase fines and prison sentences for such willful violation of our laws, but it will assure that the names of child labor law violators are publicized. Nothing will deter corporate giants more than negative publicity, and bad press is one of the few effective sanctions that are available to us. Mr. Speaker, our legislation also increases protection for children under the age of 14 who are migrant or seasonal workers in agriculture. Current labor laws allow children--even those under 10 years of age--to be employed in agriculture. Farm worker children can work unlimited hours before and after school, and they are not even eligible for overtime pay. At the age of 14, or even earlier, children working in agriculture can use knives and machetes, operate dangerous machinery, and be exposed to toxic pesticides. In no other industry are children so exploited as they are in agriculture. H.R. 2119 also requires better record keeping and reporting of child labor violations, prohibits minors from operating or cleaning certain types of unsafe equipment, and prohibits children from working in certain particularly hazardous occupations. Mr. Speaker, our legislation will reduce the problem of children working long hours when school is in session, and it strengthens existing limitations on the number of hours children under 18 years of age can work on school days. The bill would eliminate all youth labor before school, and after-school work would be limited to 15 or 20 hours per week, depending on the age of the child. This is important, Mr. Speaker, because the more hours children work during the school year, the more likely they are to take easier courses, and the more likely they are to do poorly in their studies. Studies have shown that children who work long hours also tend to use more alcohol and drugs. Mr. Speaker, too many teenagers are working long hours at the very time that they should be focusing on their education. It is important for children to learn the value of work, but education, not minimum- wage jobs, are the key to these young people's future. Our legislation is an important step in focusing attention back upon education. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join as cosponsors of this legislation. The future of our nation depends upon the strength of our young people. It is important that we assure a safe place to work and that we be certain that work not interfere with education.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last week the Washington Post published an excellent front-page article about the unique life and the outstanding philanthropic contributions of my dear friend Dr. Laszlo Tauber. I call this to the attention of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, because in many ways the story of Laci Tauber reflects what is best about this wonderful country of ours. Dr. Tauber, who received his initial medical training in Hungary before World War II, survived the horrors of the Holocaust in Budapest. He not only preserved his own life, he risked his own life to use his medical training to help those who were suffering the most at the hands of German Nazi troops and Hungarian Fascist thugs. After coming to the United States, Mr. Speaker, Laci Tauber encountered problems and obstacles that face many of those who emigrate to this country seeking freedom and opportunity. He rose above those obstacles, establishing a highly successful medical practice in the Washington, DC, area and creating a real estate empire in this area that is the envy of many real estate magnates whose names are far better known in this region. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Tauber has sought to give back something to this country which welcomed him and which provided him outstanding opportunities. His most recent and creative act of generosity involves the establishment of a scholarship fund to assist the grandchildren and other descendants of those men and women who served in our nation's armed services during World War II. Dr. Tauber and I feel a strong debt of gratitude to those brave men and women who risked their lives to liberate the peoples of Europe who were enslaved by Nazi Germany's evil Third Reich. This is only the most recent and most creative of Dr. Tauber's philanthropic endeavors. I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Dr. Laszlo Tauber. I ask that the article from the Washington Post which details his exceptional accomplishments be placed in the Record. [From the Washington Post, June 2, 1999] Giving With a Point: Holocaust Survivor Donates Millions (By Cindy Loose) It was a struggle that first year in America, just after World War II. Laszlo Tauber and his wife lived in a Virginia apartment so decrepit the landlord warned them not to step on the balcony because it might fall off. But with the frugality and generosity that have characterized his life, Tauber saved $250 from his income of $1,600. Then he gave it away. ``I am a Hungarian Jew who survived the Holocaust,'' Tauber wrote in a note to doctors at Walter Reed Army Hospital, where many veterans of the war were recovering from their wounds. ``As a token of appreciation, my first savings I would like you to give to a soldier of your choice.'' In the intervening years, Laszlo Tauber built a thriving surgical practice, started his own hospital, and in his free moments created one of the largest real estate fortunes in the region. Estimates of his wealth exceed $1 billion. He may be the richest Washingtonian you've never heard about. He has already donated more than $25 million to medical and Holocaust-related causes. Now he's giving $15 million for scholarships to descendants of anyone who served in the U.S. military during the war years. An additional $10 million, honoring Raoul Wallenberg, who saved tens of thousands of Hungarian Jews, will go to organizations that memorialize the Holocaust and students in Denmark and Wallenberg's native Sweden. Several local foundation leaders say even they have never heard of Tauber, but all call the latest donations remarkable. Tauber hopes the gifts will inspire--or, if necessary, shame--other Holocaust survivors who have the means to give. When Tauber gives money, he always intends to make a moral point. And when he knows he is right, the 84-year-old says, ``you can move the Washington Monument more easily.'' Generous in philanthropy, parsimonious in his business dealings, Tauber is, his friends say, the most complicated man they've ever met. Asked to describe himself, he responds, ``I am a righteous, miserable creature of God.'' Formed in the Holocaust He still sees patients, does minor surgery and makes all major decisions about his varied business and philanthropic enterprises. He's proud that he charged dirt-cheap prices for his medical services and ignored overdue bills. But he also squeezed every dime of profit from his real estate deals and pursued one failed venture all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. He lives on a 36-acre estate in Potomac and gives away millions but stoops to pick up stray paper clips and writes, in tiny script, on the back of used paper. Everything about him--his quirks, his drive, his outlook on life--he says can be explained by the Holocaust. Tauber shuns publicity and must be prodded to discuss his past. People who he believes exploit the Holocaust for personal glory he calls ``dirty no-goods.'' With the current gift, he wants to get the message to other survivors, so he will talk. In the fading photographs he keeps in his Northern Virginia office, the team of gymnasts from the Budapest Jewish High School looks so young, and so proud. Tauber will never forget a meet in 1927, when he was 12. ``Everyone was standing, singing the Hungarian national anthem, and people started throwing rotten apples at my team, yelling, `Dirty Jews' '' Tauber says. He pauses, tears welling in his eyes. ``I thought to myself: `Bastards. I will train. I will beat them. I will show them.' '' Within two years, he was a national and European champion. ``Am I competitive? Yes, unfortunately so,'' he says today. ``Did I become a happier man? Definitely not. But my experiences made me always stand for the underdog.'' Hungary was not occupied by Germany until the spring of 1944, by which time the country had the only large reservoir of Jews left in Europe. Between April and June of 1944, roughly 437,000 Hungarian Jews in the countryside were sent to Auschwitz. ``Almost all were gassed on arrival, or soon after,'' says Walter Reich, former director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. The Jews of the capital city were next on the list. In this atmosphere, Tauber, at age 29, became chief surgeon at a makeshift hospital for Jews. His memories of that time are described in staccato images, interrupted by cracking voice and silent tears. ``A mother begged me to save her son. But you understand, he was dead already.'' Zoltan Barta, a friend and former schoolmate, was hit in the head with shrapnel. His last words: ``My dear Laci, save me.'' Sandor Barna, who refused to wear the required yellow star, begged Tauber to fix the hooked nose that threatened to betray his ethnicity. But Tauber didn't have the equipment. The Nazis killed Barna. ``If I could have operated on Sandor Barna,'' Tauber says, ``he would be alive today.'' But Reich says Tauber is an unsung hero, worthy of a Presidential Medal of Freedom. Imagine the irony, he says, of running a hospital for people slated to die. ``It's strange, and crazy, but also necessary, and compelling and ultimately noble,'' Reich says. ``And he did it as a young man. And he did it in a manner that foretold his future.'' Giving and Getting Tauber's son, Alfred Tauber, remembers as a young boy visiting New York City. ``At night, I'd walk with my father around Times Square,'' he says. ``I'd ask, `What are you doing? Why are we here?' He'd answer, `I'm looking for my old friends.' '' And sometimes, amazingly, they would find one. If the person needed money, Tauber would arrange to give some. Tauber had come to the United States to take a fellowship at George Washington University, where he was paid a small stipend and supplemented his income by giving physicals for 25 cents each. ``I offered my services for less than a decent prostitute would charge,'' he says now. Hugo V. Rissoli, a retired professor, says that Tauber was brilliant, but that the doctor assigned to be his mentor virtually ignored him, and Tauber was not asked to stay on. Tauber sensed antisemitism and reacted much as he did when he was 12: If discrimination was to keep him from rising at an established hospital, he'd build his own. He built the hospital, the now-closed Jefferson Memorial in Alexandria, in part so he could train other young doctors who had earned their degrees abroad. In his spare time, with a $750 loan, he began amassing the necessary fortune in real estate. ``Real estate meant independence, to practice as I wish,'' he says. ``I spent 5 percent of my time on real estate but got 95 percent of my money from it.'' His development portfolio was diversified--office, retail, government, residential. In 1985, he became the only doctor ever named on the Forbes magazine list of richest men. Tauber takes enormous pride in his surgical skills but shows none in his real estate prowess. Real estate, his son Alfred thinks, is the means his father uses to steel himself against an unstable world. But, says Alfred, a medical doctor and director of the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University, it also ``appeals to his competitive streak. He takes delight that he can play the game better than most.'' Wizards owner Abe Pollin marvels at Tauber, whom he met in the early 1950s. ``It took every ounce of my energy to run my real estate business,'' Pollin says. ``I was much less successful at it than him, and he did it while running a full-time medical practice.'' Tauber's real estate empire brought many battles. As the federal government's biggest landlord, he was known for building exactly to code, with no frills. For two years, nine federal agencies fought being transferred to an 11-story building on Buzzard Point that the General Services Administration was renting from Tauber for $2.5 million a year. It was so spare, they couldn't imagine working there. Finally, the GSA strong-armed the Federal Bureau of Investigation into moving there. Rissoli likes to tell of the time neighbors complained Tauber was putting up a three-story apartment building in an area zoned for lower buildings. Tauber took off the roof, removed a few rows of bricks and called it a 2.5-story building. Tauber's daughter, Irene, a San Francisco psychologist, says she never realized growing up that her family was wealthy. They lived simply, in an apartment building that was part of a Tauber development in Bethesda, between Massachusetts Avenue and River Road. But they were initially unwelcome in the neighborhood, even though they owned it. Tauber says that soon after he submitted the winning bid to buy the land in the late 1950s, an agent representing the owners asked that he agree not to sell any of the residential tracts to blacks or Jews. The agent was amazed when Tauber told him he was Jewish. Under threat of a lawsuit--and at the agent's urging--the owners went through with the deal. The Uses of Money Some years ago, Tauber was due at a reception at Brandeis University, where he had donated $1.6 million to establish an institute for the study of European Jewry. He needed a white shirt and steered his daughter toward Korvette's, the New York-based discount store. Inside, he headed for the basement. ``Daddy, Korvette's is already cheap,'' Irene protested. ``You don't have to go in the bargain basement.'' Tauber's only concession to his wealth is the home he shares with his second wife, Diane. (He and his first wife, now deceased, were divorced years ago.) But even his home cost him little: He made a huge profit by selling off some of the surrounding land. But although he doesn't spend money on himself, he gives it away. He harbors resentment about the treatment he says he got at George Washington University decades ago, but he agreed to donate $1 million to the campus Hillel Center on the condition that a room be named in honor of Rissoli. Rissoli says he did nothing more than be friendly to Tauber. But Tauber says that by being kind, Rissoli restored his faith in humanity. One-third of the new $15 million grant will be funneled through GW, the rest through Boston University and others to be named. Recipients, to be selected by the universities, will be required to take one Holocaust-related course or tutorial. Tauber says he hopes the gift will prompt students to think about the sacrifices of their forefathers. The funds are dedicated to the memory of his parents, as well as his uncle and his only brother, both of whom died in the Holocaust. Why do it now? ``I don't stay here too long,'' he says. ``At my age I should not start to read a long book.'' The money, most of which will become available at Tauber's death, will be awarded with one unusual guideline: The percentage of African Americans who receive the scholarships must be at least as large as the percentage who served during World War II--or about 6 percent, according to military historians. ``It cannot be tolerated,'' Tauber explains, ``that those of us who were discriminated against should ever ourselves discriminate.'' The Americans who fought in foreign lands for strangers, Tauber says, rescued a remnant of his people, and they saved the world. ``It is not enough,'' he says, ``to shake hands and say thank you.''

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to Mr. Robert Anderson, who is retiring after two distinguished decades as President of the San Mateo County Central Labor Council. During his remarkable tenure as San Mateo's top advocate for working people, innumerable working men and women have benefited enormously from Mr. Anderson's dedication to improving working and living conditions for families in San Mateo County and for employees of the airline industry nationwide. Bob Anderson, a member of International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge 1781, is a former United Airlines Mechanic, and currently he serves as ground safety coordinator for IAM District 141. His outstanding career as a labor advocate includes his efforts to establish, build and chair the San Francisco Airport Labor Coalition and its predecessor, the Airport Health and Safety Coalition. He has served on the advisory boards of the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Labor Occupational Health Program at the University of California, Berkeley. Mr. Speaker, the labor movement's involvement and effectiveness in our community has been greatly strengthened through Bob Anderson's dedication and service on the Central Labor Council's Committee on Political Action, which supports local, state and national officeholders who share labor's progressive social values. He worked tirelessly against the passage of Proposition 226, the anti-working family initiative which was rightly rejected by California voters in June of 1998. Bob Anderson's most memorable achievement is the establishment of PALCARE, San Mateo County's community based, flexibly scheduled childcare center which opened in 1993. For twelve years Bob was undeterred in his determination to establish this affordable, high- quality, around-the-clock childcare for working parents at San Francisco International Airport and other work sites where employees must work non-traditional hours. Mr. Anderson leaves an enduring legacy through his establishment of this safe, happy haven for the children of those who contribute to San Mateo's thriving economy. Mr. Speaker, Bob Anderson will be honored at the 20th Annual Banquet of the Committee on Political Education on Saturday, June 12,1999. I join with those who commend his lifelong, selfless quest to better the lives of his fellow working men and women, and I extend my most enthusiastic wishes for a blissful and happy retirement as he embarks on this new chapter in his life.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the courageous struggle and profound hope of my constituents JoAnn and Carl Rock in the search for their missing son, Robert, and to offer support for Jennifer's Law, H.R. 1915, introduced by my distinguished colleague Congressman Rick Lazio. I thank Congressman Lazio for introducing this bipartisan bill. In 1995, 26-year-old Robert Rock, son of JoAnn and Carl Rock, disappeared, and he has not yet been found. Because he is a missing person over the age of 18, Missing Persons Agencies have given Robert's case a low priority. Robert's parents believe that their son may be an unidentified body in New York. JoAnn and Carl Rock's hope of discovering the fate of their son relies upon this Congress passing a bill encouraging all law enforcement agencies to report every unidentified body to a federal computer database. Jennifer's Law consists of establishing a grant award in order to encourage that a State, to the greatest extent possible, will be involved in reporting to the National Crime Information Center throughout the State and other authorities regarding every deceased unidentified person, creating a complete profile of such unidentified person, and inputting a National Crime Information Center number on the death certificate of such an unidentified missing person. Furthermore, all such records must be retained until a person is identified as part of the application process for the grant. I urge my colleagues to offer aid to all parents who may be on a search to locate a missing daughter or son by supporting H.R. 1915. Jennifer's Law is essential in bringing relief to families such as the Rock family, that face the pain inflicted by a life full of unanswered questions about the whereabouts of their child. H.R. 1915 provides invaluable hope to families whose sons and daughters have vanished and remain missing. I therefore ask that all my colleagues vote today in support of Jennifer's Law. Mr. Speaker, Jennifer's Law is an example of exceptional legislation resulting in better government. The tragic story of Carl and JoAnn Rock demonstrates the need for comprehensive action on the behalf of the thousands of families searching for missing loved ones. H.R. 1915, Jennifer's Law, costs little, but it gives in return the priceless gift of human compassion.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating Asian/Pacific American Heritage month from May 1 to May 31, 1999. Mr. Speaker, the greatness of our nation rests in its diversity: the diversity of its ideas, the diversity of its experiences, and, above all, the diversity of its peoples. America's institutions are constantly being reinvigorated by the vitality of our country's component communities, with their distinct but equally wondrous values and histories. This multitude of cultures fuses together to form a magnificent social mosaic, one made bolder and more dynamic by the contributions of citizens of diverse national origins. We learn from each other, and we share with each other the dividends of our different traditions. Throughout the month of May, we celebrate the achievements of millions of Americans by commemorating Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month. This year's theme, ``Celebrating Our Legacy,'' calls attention to the extraordinary gifts that Asian and Pacific Americans have bestowed upon our nation. From the scientific community to the sports world, from the arts to the Internet, the perseverance and patriotism of Asian and Pacific Americans add to this country's greatness. Internet pioneers such as Jerry Yang prepare our economy for the twenty-first century, while Dr. David Ho leads the crusade against one of the new millennium's most alarming dangers: AIDS. Congressman Bob Matsui and Congresswoman Patsy Mink stand at the forefront of our government's fight for civil rights and social justice, and respected ABC news correspondent Connie Chung keeps America informed about these challenges and others with her insightful investigative report. This nation's cultural heritage has been enriched by the musical brilliance of Seiji Ozawa and Yo-Yo Ma, the creative genius of author Deeprak Chopra and fashion designer Vera Wang, and the athletic skills of golfing superstar Tiger Woods and Olympic figure skating legends Kristi Yamaguchi and Michelle Kwan. Mr. Speaker, these exceptional contributions are all the more evident when one considers the formidable obstacles which Asian and Pacific Americans had to overcome to achieve them. Their long history has featured pervasive discrimination in the form of restrictive quotas, unfounded stereotypes, and, all too often, violent hate crimes. The most infamous example of this bigotry involved the forced detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II, when innocent men, women, and children were expelled from their homes and banished to camps in remote parts of the country. This outrage remains a permanent stain on the history of the American people, sullying an otherwise proud record of support for human rights and individual dignity. While the American government officially questioned the patriotism of Japanese-Americans on our West Coast, other Japanese-Americans serving in our nation's armed forces in remote corners of the globe were demonstrating the fallacy of such unjust accusations. During the Second World War, the Japanese-American 100th Infantry Battalion and 442nd Regimental Combat units earned more than 18,000 medals for bravery and valor in battle--52 Distinguished Service Crosses, 560 Silver Stars, and 9,480 Purple Hearts. The 442nd remains to this day the most decorated combat team of its size in the history of the United States Army. Yet, while the brave soldiers of these units were risking their lives to preserve freedom, the government for which they so courageously fought was evicting their family members from their homes and communities. Mr. Speaker, this is only one of a multitude of examples of Asian and Pacific Americans surmounting the hurdles of prejudice and discrimination to make a difference in every sector of society. It is these innumerable stories of perseverance and success that we celebrate Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the legacy of all Americans of Asian and Pacific descent.