Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

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

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

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

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the distinguished chairman of our Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), for introducing this legislation, as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, my good friend from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and all other colleagues who have cosponsored this legislation. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, was necessary when the United States broke diplomatic relations with the Republic of China in Taiwan after establishing full diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China 20 years ago. The Taiwan Relations Act provides us with the mechanism for maintaining continued security, economic, cultural and political relations between the United States and Taiwan. It has been the key to maintaining close relationships between the American people and the people of Taiwan. In the past 20 years, Mr. Speaker, Taiwan has undergone perhaps more dramatic change than any other country on the face of this planet. Taiwan has emerged from a long tradition of authoritarian rule and it has become a full-fledged political democracy, with free elections, free press, freedom of religion, and a multi-party democracy. Just a few years ago, the people of Taiwan participated, in the first time in the history of the Chinese people, in the direct and Democratic election of a president. Taiwan has made incredible progress in the economic sphere. It is now viewed, properly, as one of the most successful economies on the face of this planet and is one of our key trading partners. It is intriguing to note, Mr. Speaker, that while we are celebrating and commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, the 20th year of establishing full diplomatic relations between the People's Republic of China and the United States passed almost unnoticed. The reason, of course, is that the American people have severe reservations about the continuing oppression of human rights on the mainland of China. House Concurrent Resolution 56 calls particular attention to the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act which guarantee that the United States will continue to make available defense articles that are necessary for Taiwan's offense. In light of China's ominous military buildup in recent times of ballistic missile capabilities and other military resources directed at Taiwan, this provision is extremely important and I welcome that our resolution reaffirms our commitment to Taiwan's defense. We also need to assure, Mr. Speaker, that Taiwan is able to participate in all international organizations. We particularly need to support the participation of Taiwan in the World Trade Organization. By every conceivable yardstick, Taiwan has earned the right to full and unrestricted membership in the World Trade Organization, and I call on our government to support Taiwan's membership. I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing House Concurrent Resolution 67, which expresses the sense of the Congress that freedom of the news media and freedom of expression are vital to the development and consolidation of democracy in Russia and that the United States should actively support such freedoms. Joining me in introducing this legislation are the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations; the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson, the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on International Relations; and the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, who is a senior member of the Committee. Mr. Speaker, we are introducing this legislation today because this afternoon the Prime Minister of Russia. Yevgeny Primakov, arrives in the United States for meetings with Vice President Gore. I doubt, Mr. Speaker, that media freedom in Russia is a leading topic on the agenda for the meetings that are scheduled to take place over the next few days during Prime Minister Primakov's visit to our country. It is an issue, however, that ought to be very high on that agenda. This resolution expresses our unequivocal belief in the necessity of a free and vibrant news media in Russia. No other institution is as essential to the growth of a democratic society than a press unhindered by pressure from governmental authorities, one with the unquestioned ability to shed light upon the deeds and intentions of those with power and influence. Russia--a nation which has been fighting for the last decade to replace communist oppression with strongly-rooted institutions that respect individual freedoms--must ensure the independence of its media in order to maintain and continue the progress of the last ten years. The enormity of the Russian reform process is breathtaking, and few can doubt the success of governmental initiatives in drastically improving the human rights situation across this immense nation. I vividly recall my service in this House during the 1980's, when many of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, worked doggedly to oppose the repressive policies and practices of the Soviet regime. We focused attention of the persecution of Nobel Laureate Andrei Sakharov, of political dissidents locked up in Siberian gulags, and of my friend Natan Sharansky, then an imprisoned refusnik and now a senior minister in the government of Israeli. Fortunately, those days are behind us. But without the fundamental building blocks of a democratic society, the most notable of which involves freedom of the media and freedom of expression, such advancements may only be temporary. The means of informing the citizenry must not be obstructed. Tyranny knows no better friend than silence. While the Russian Constitution offers firm guarantees of freedom to the news media, such protections have not prevented numerous violations of this principle. The State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1998, which was released just last month, states that during 1998 ``federal, regional, and local governments continued to exert pressure on journalists by depriving them of access to information, using accreditation procedures to limit access, removing them from their jobs and bringing libel suits against them, and violating their human rights.'' Furthermore, the State Department estimates that ``between 250 and 300 lawsuits and other legal actions were brought by the Government against journalists and journalistic organizations during the year in response to unfavorable coverage of government policy or operations. . . . In the vast majority of such cases, the Government succeeded in either intimidating or punishing the journalist.'' Mr. Speaker, this is a dangerous and an ominous precedent, one that could be exploited in the future by autocratic leaders to trample on the liberties of the Russian people. The threats to the Russian media vary both in their nature and their severity. The State Department identifies an alarming range of specific cases, from the efforts of federal tax authorities to shut down Novaya Gazeta (a Russian daily ``known for its relative independence and aggressive reporting on corruption at high levels'') to the detention of well-known journalist Irina Chernova, who was allegedly blackmailed by Volgograd police officers. According to the report, the officers were ``threatening to release pictures and videotapes of her engaged in sex acts'' in response to critical articles about the department's performance. Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to carefully examine the State Department's report in order to obtain a better understanding of the seriousness and scope of this problem. My concerns about this serious matter were piqued last week by the Russian Duma's passage of legislation to tighten state control of television and radio. If it becomes law, this bill would provide a government-appointed ``supreme council'' with unreasonable powers to regulate media content, and the council would have the authority to suspend or revoke a broadcaster's license. I ask my colleagues to join me in urging President Boris Yeltsin to veto this misguided and dangerous initiative. Mr. Speaker, one of this century's great statesman, President Dwight David Eisenhower, voiced the following words of reason forty-five years ago when he delivered the commencement address at Dartmouth College: ``Don't join the book burners. Don't think you're going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed.'' I sincerely hope that the leaders of Russia will honor this advice, and that they will recognize that the free exchange of ideas is the foundation of any stable democracy. It is important that we here in the Congress affirm our commitment to the principles of freedom of expression and freedom of the media. Our resolution does this in clear and unequivocal terms. I invite my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this important legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that the text of the resolution be placed in the Record.***HD***H. Con. Res. 67 Expressing the sense of the Congress that freedom of the news media and freedom of expression are vital to the development and consolidation of democracy in Russia and that the United States should actively support such freedoms. Whereas the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union has brought new and unique opportunities for democratic political change and the development of market-oriented economic reform in Russia, but the recent economic difficulties in that country have created turbulent and difficult conditions for the Russian people; Whereas one of the most important means of assuring the continuation of democratic government and the ultimate guarantee of individual freedom and respect for human rights is an open, independent and free news media; Whereas a free news media can exist only in an environment that is free of state control of the news media, that is free of any form of state censorship or official coercion of any kind, and that is protected and guaranteed by the rule of law; Whereas freedom of the news media and freedom of expression in Russia today are threatened by elements in the Government, the Duma and elsewhere throughout Russian society which are opposed to freedom of the press and freedom of expression; Whereas the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1998 notes that ``federal, regional, and local governments continued to exert pressure on journalists by depriving them of access to information, using accreditation procedures to limit access, removing them from their jobs and bringing libel suits against them, and violating their human rights''; Whereas the Country Reports further notes that in the past year ``between 250 and 300 lawsuits and other legal actions were brought by the Government against journalists and journalistic organizations during the year in response to unfavorable coverage of government policy or operations'' and ``in the vast majority of such cases, the Government succeeded in either intimidating or punishing the journalist; and Whereas the Duma recently adopted legislation establishing a ``Supreme Council'' with a mandate to review the content of television and radio programs and authority to suspend and/or revoke a broadcaster's license: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that-- (1) a free news media is vital to the development and consolidation of democracy and the development of a civil society in Russia: (2) freedom of the news media and freedom of expression must be safeguarded against those forces which would limit or suppress these fundamental human rights; (3) Russian Government leaders, including the President, the Prime Minister, and Members of the Russian Parliament, should fully support freedom of the news media and the right of free expression in Russia; (4) the United States should actively support freedom of expression and freedom of the news media through our programs of assistance to Russia; (5) when considering requests by the Russian government for loans or other economic assistance from the International Monetary Fund and other international financial institutions, the United States government should take into account the extent to which Russian government authorities support the full, free, and unfettered freedom of the news media and freedom of expression in deciding whether to support such requests; and (6) the President and the Secretary of State are requested to convey to appropriate Russian Government officials, including the President, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, this expression of the views of the Congress.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Capuchino High School of San Bruno, California, for an extraordinary program they have instituted called ``Sojourn to the Past.'' Envisioned by Jeff Steinberg, a history teacher at Capuchino High School, this ten-day trip recently led eighty-five high school students through a history of the civil rights movement that was made very personal. The trip began in Washington, D.C., and ended in the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, in the hotel room where Martin Luther King, Jr., was martyred. Along the way the students met with several major figureheads of the civil rights movement, including Chris McNair, father of one of the Birmingham Four, Elizabeth Eckford, who de- segregated Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, and my own good friend, Congressman John Lewis, who introduced the students to his philosophy of non-violence. History came alive for these young people as they followed the trail of the most significant movement of the twentieth century. They found it impossible to take their own civil rights for granted when confronted with first-person accounts from those who risked their lives fighting to attain those very rights. But a sense of the reality of history was not the only thing the students took home. The testimonies of the people with whom they met emphasized forgiveness and tolerance, fairly foreign concepts to American high school culture. The idea of using non-violence and tolerance as a mode of dealing with day-to-day problems was initially received with suspicion but seemed to have hit home by the end of the trip. In a letter written to Congressman John Lewis, junior Kristin Agius wrote: ``Your message has made me rethink my idea of what it means to be important. . . . I've come to the conclusion that a step forward, even a small step, is better than aspiring for something that will only benefit myself.'' Mark Simon, a reported from The San Francisco Chronicle, accompanied the students on their journey to the past. I ask that Mr. Simon's excellent report on this outstanding educational experience be included in the Record. Civil Rights Tour [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 28, 1999] Day 1: Thursday, Feb. 11, Washington, D.C. They had flown east all day, leaving the morning light of the Bay Area for the nighttime darkness of the nation's capital. With barely a pause, they piled into two buses, went to dinner, and then, as the hour neared 10 p.m., they went as a group to the Lincoln Memorial, where they sat on the steps, huddled together. Then they listened to a recording of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s conscience-rousing sermon to the 1963 March on Washington, in which he told an assembled multitude of 250,000 that he had a dream of true equality and justice for a nation riven by hatred and racism. And so it began. Eighty-five students from Capuchino High School in San Bruno, the most diverse in the San Mateo Union High School District, had embarked on a 10-day journey called ``Sojourn to the Past.'' It was organized by Jeff Steinberg, a history teacher gifted with energy and devotion to match his vision. The students went wherever the civil rights movement had gone, seeing the people who had been there, hearing tales of heroism and sacrifice and walking in the footsteps of greatness large and small. This was a spirituay journey--a journey of forgiveness and tolerance, of faith and hope, a journey to the past and for the future. It was to be an education. There were lessons to be learned.

Mr. LANTOS

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

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend from California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 37. First, Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate my good friend from New Jersey who has taken the initiative in submitting this most important resolution, and let me identify myself with every single one of his comments. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the United States is considering the possibility of taking military action in Kosovo which ultimately would be the result of racial, ethnic and religious hatreds. In this century, we have seen too many expressions of extreme racial, religious and ethnic statements leading to actions of persecution and discrimination and ultimately to genocide not to be painfully aware of the significance of statements of hate and violence being uttered in halls of parliament. We clearly cannot ignore the anti-Semitic statements emanating from some quarters of the Russian Duma. Words are powerful, Mr. Speaker, and they have consequences. They can incite action. Words are usually the first step in a chain of events leading ultimately to genocide. The words that we have heard from some Duma members should outrage every civilized person in this country and elsewhere. Our action must be to condemn such outrageous statements as our resolution does. But our resolution should also commend those in Russia, including President Yeltsin and some members of the Duma, who have spoken out against statements of hate. I might mention parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, that one of the most courageous human rights advocates of the Duma, a courageous woman parliamentarian, was killed in cold blood in her apartment house just because she has spoken out against incitement to hatred and murder. As Russia struggles through a very difficult economic period, Russian leaders must be particularly cautious and careful not to promote scapegoating in their society. It is, therefore, very heartening that some Russian leaders, particularly President Yeltsin, have spoken out against incitement to hatred, persecution and ultimately murder. It shows that there are some Russian leaders who clearly recognize that racism and anti-Semitism have no place in the modern Russian society. This issue, Mr. Speaker, is very high on the agenda of our administration. Secretary Albright raised the matter during her recent trip to Moscow, and in a few hours when Vice President Gore will be meeting with Prime Minister Primakov, who is about to land, he will raise this issue as one of the most important issues of their upcoming discussions. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 37. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) and commend my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for introducing this resolution. Mr. Speaker, like many others in this body, I would be more than ready to start changing our policy towards Cuba if the pattern of human rights violations would not continue. It is an appalling phenomenon that Castro continues his policy of suppression, oppression, and persecution of the Cuban people, particularly those Cuban people who are crying out for a modicum of democracy and freedom. This resolution properly calls on our government to carry the ball in Geneva in denouncing the human rights violations of Cuba. When I visited Cuba sometime ago, we had high hopes that the Castro government will recognize at long last that its policy of suppression, totalitarianism, and dictatorship are counterproductive. We were hoping that there might be some loosening, that there might be some opening up, that there might be some concessions towards a free press. When the Pope visited Cuba we had high hopes that the precedent of his visit would lead to modification of policies. None of these things have happened, and given the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to join the sponsors of this resolution, of which I am one, in calling for freedom for the Cuban people, and denouncing Castro's continuing human rights violations.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, events are moving so fast that there is always a danger we will forget about our citizens who are missing in action. There is one such American citizen missing in action in the Middle East for the last 17 years. A large group of my colleagues across the political spectrum join me in introducing this resolution calling on the Department of State to locate and secure the return of this American citizen, Zachary Baumel. We are asking the State Department to contact all governments concerned, and we are asking the Department of State to take into account the actions of all governments with respect to this issue in extending economic and other aids to countries in the region. I ask all of my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation to bring this lost American, missing in action, back to his family.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, almost 17 years ago, three Israeli soldiers were captured in northeastern Lebanon following a tank battle with Syrian and Palestinian forces near the town of Sultan Yaqub. One of the men was Sgt. Zachary Baumel, an American citizen living in Israel. His parents also live in Israel and also are American citizens. The other two Israeli soldiers captured at Sultan Yaqub are Tzvi Feldman and Yehuda Katz. According to press and intelligence reports, a pro-Syrian faction of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) had custody of these three men initially, but the faction later split from the PLO and took the three prisoners with them. Just hours after the soldiers were captured, western journalists in Damascus and Syrian radio reported that three Israeli soldiers were paraded through the streets of Damascus in a victory parade. Over 10 years later, in 1993, the families of the MIAs hoped their ordeal might be over when Palestinian Authority Chairman, Yasser Arafat, returned half of Baumel's army dogtag to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and promised to provide additional information regarding the MIAs of Sultan Yaqub. Over 5 years have passed since that time, and no additional information has been forthcoming from Chairman Arafat. According to the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv (April 24, 1994), French President Jacques Chirac raised the issue of the three prisoners during a visit to Lebanon. He reported on his conversations in Beirut: ``I spoke to my friend, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, and he told me in no uncertain terms that only [Syrian President Hafez al] Assad knows what happened to the [Israeli] POWs.'' Syrian officials, however, have repeatedly denied knowledge of the missing men. Syrian practice in the past has been to deny publicly holding such individuals. For example, the Syrians repeatedly denied knowledge of a group of Palestinians whom they held for over a decade; the Palestinian prisoners only became known when the Syrian government released them in 1995. On the basis of this experience with Syria, it is quite possible that these Israeli MIAs are still alive and under Syrian control. Mr. Speaker, I have chosen to introduce this legislation today because this day holds great significance for the Jewish people. Today is the first day of the month of Nissan on the Jewish calendar. Nissan is a very important month because Jews from around the world celebrate Passover and join with their families in the observance of the holiday of freedom in this month. It is in the spirit of this month that I ask my colleagues in the Congress to join me in helping Zachary Baumel, Tzvi Feldman, and Yehuda Katz return to their homes. Sitting in the gallery today is Mrs. Miriam Baumel, Zachary Baumel's mother, whose tireless efforts on behalf of H.R. 1175 are a testament of her deep love for her son and her strong support for this legislation. Miriam and husband, Yona, have visited communities across the country and have met with numerous Members of Congress and congressional staff in their tireless effort to rally support for their son and to end this family tragedy. I have confidence in this house's ability to do what is right. Mr. Speaker. The Baumel, Feldman, and Katz families should not have to spend one more night worrying about the fate of Zachary, Tzvi, and Yehuda. H.R. 1175 directs the Department of State to raise the fate of these Israeli soldiers with the Palestinian Authority and leaders of the governments of Syria, Lebanon, and other countries in the Middle East in an effort to locate and secure the return of these soldiers. This legislation also specifies that U.S. aid to these governments ``should take into consideration the willingness of these governments and authorities to assist in locating and securing the return of these soldiers.'' The State Department is directed to report to the Congress concerning these efforts. Mr. Speaker, our legislation is introduced in the hope that we can find answers to the questions that have haunted the Baumel, Katz, and Feldman families for almost 17 years. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and help to put an end to this tragedy.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last Friday at the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library in Independence, Missouri, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright president over the ceremony marking the final step in the accession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to membership in the North Atlantic Alliance. This was a historic occasion as these three former members of the Warsaw Pact, an alliance which was established to counter the North Altantic Treaty Organization, were now joining as full members of this western alliance. Mr. Speaker, it was most appropriate that the ceremony marking full accession to NATO took place at the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library. It was under the far-sighted and thoughtful leadership of President Truman that NATO was established fifty years ago this year. We mark not only the 50th anniversary of the establishment of NATO, but also the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Soviet dominance in Central and Eastern Europe. If any one individual deserves credit for the end of communist domination in Europe and for the end of the Soviet empire, Mr. Speaker, it is President Harry Truman. He was the President to made the critical decisions in the early days of the cold war; he was the President under whose leadership the policy of containment was enunciated; and he was the President who established the critical institutions which were the basis of U.S. policy throughout the cold war. His successors--from Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan and George Bush--were simply implementing the fundamental policy that was enunciated, initiated, and put in place by Harry Truman. Mr. Speaker, the accession to NATO of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic at the Truman Library was a quintessentially ``American'' event--the United States Senator who introduced our Secretary of State, my friend and colleague from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski, is Polish- American; I had the honor of participating in that event and, as my colleagues know, I am a native of Budapest, Hungary; and, of course, our Secretary of State, Madeleine K. Albright who presided on this occasion, was born in Prague in the Czech Republic. The remarks on this festive occasion by our Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker, provide an outstanding statement of the U.S. government policy that underlies this landmark addition of new members to NATO. Secretary Albright's speech also provides an excellent summary of the importance of the first half century of the NATO alliance as well as a discussion of its future. I ask that Secretary Albright's remarks be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to read and give them thoughtful attention. SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you, Senator Mikulski, for that wonderful and personal introduction, and thank you for your great friendship. I want to thank you and your colleagues, Senators Roth and Smith and Representatives Skelton, Lantos, and McCarthy for your bipartisan leadership on behalf of NATO and NATO enlargement. You have helped to make history, because without your support we would not be here today. Minister Kavan, Minister Martonyi, and Minister Geremek, excellencies from the diplomatic corps, Admiral Gough, General Anderson and other leaders of our armed forces, officials of the Truman Library--thank you for remembering my daughter--honored guests, colleagues, and friends, today is a day of celebration and re-dedication and remembrance and renewal. Today we recognize in fact what has always been true in spirit. Today we confirm through our actions that the lands of King Stephen and Cardinal Mindszenty, Charles the Fourth and Vaclav Havel, Copernicus and Pope John Paul II reside fully and irrevocably within the Atlantic community for freedom. And to that I say, to quote an old Central European expression. ``Hallelujah.'' (Applause.) History will record March 12, 1999, as the day the people of Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland strode through NATO's open door and assumed their rightful place in NATO's councils. To them I say that President Clinton's pledge is now fulfilled. Never again will your fates be tossed around like poker chips on a bargaining table. Whether you are helping to revise the Alliance's strategic concept or engaging in NATO's partnership with Russia, the promise of ``nothing about you without you,'' is now formalized. You are truly allies; you are truly home. This is a cause for celebration not only in Prague, Budapest and Warsaw, but throughout the Alliance. For the tightening of transatlantic ties that we make today inspired the vision of translatlantic leaders half a century ago. That generation, which in Dean Acheson's famous phrase was ``present at the creation,'' emerged from the horror of World War II determined to make another such war impossible. They had seen--and paid in blood--the price of division; so their policies were inclusive. They wanted to help build a transatlantic community of prosperity and peace that would include all of Europe. But between the 1947 offering of the Marshall Plan and the forgoing of NATO two years later, it became evident that the reality of their times did not match the boldness of their vision. The Iron Curtain descended, and across the body of Europe, a brutal and unnatural division was imposed. Now, due to bravery on both sides, that curtain has lifted, and links that should have been secured long ago are being soldered together. Today is evidence of that. For this morning, NATO is joined by three proud democracies--countries that have proven their ability to meet Alliance responsibilities, uphold Alliance values and defend Alliance interests. Since the decision to invite new members was first made, President Clinton has argued that a larger NATO would make America safer, our Alliance stronger and Europe more peaceful and united. Today, we see that this is already the case. For NATO's new members bring with them many strengths. Their citizens have a tradition of putting their lives on the line for liberty: Witness Hungary's courageous freedom fighters in 1956; the students who faced down tanks in the streets of Prague 12 years later; and the workers of Gdansk whose movement for Solidarity ushered in Europe's new dawn. As young democracies, these countries have been steadfast in supporting the vision of an integrated Europe. Their troops are serving alongside NATO forces in Bosnia. And each is contributing to stability in its own neighborhood. As a daughter of the region, and a former professor of Central and East European affairs, I know many Americans have not always had the understanding of this region that they now do. Earlier this century, when Jan Masaryk, son of the Czech President, came to the United States, an American Senator asked him, how is your father; and does he still play the violin? Jan replied, sir, I fear that you are making a small mistake. You are perhaps thinking of Paderewski and not Masaryk. Paderwski plays the piano, not the violin, and was President not of Czechoslovakia, but of Poland. (Laughter.) Of our Presidents, Benes was the only one who played; but he played neither the violin nor the piano, but football. In all other respects, your information is correct. (Laughter.) Later, after his father had died and World War II had been fought, Jan Masaryk became Czechoslovak Foreign Minister--my father's boss. It soon became clear that the revival of Czechoslovak democracy and Czechoslovak aspirations to be part of the West would be short-lived. Czechoslovakia was also invited to join the Marshall Plan. However, Foreign Minister Masaryk was summoned to Moscow and told that Czechoslovakia had to refuse the invitation. He returned to Prague to tell his colleagues, ``I now know I am not the Foreign Minister of a sovereign country.'' Masaryk's statement reminds us of another great gift the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary bring to our Alliance for freedom: the living memory of living without freedom. NATO's success has enabled generations protected by the Alliance to grow up and grow old under democratic rule. For that, we are enormously grateful. But we must also guard against a danger. For there is a risk that to people who have never known tyranny, an Alliance forged before they were born to counter an enemy that no longer exists, to defend freedoms some believe are no longer endangered, may appear no more relevant than the fate of Central Europe did to some of our predecessdors 60 years ago. The Truman Library is a fit place for plain speaking. So let me speak plainly now. It is the job of each and every one of us, on both sides of the Atlantic, to bring home to the generations of today and tomorrow the compelling lessons of this century. We must never fall back into complacency or presume that totalitarianism is forever dead or retreat in the face of aggression. We must learn from history, not repeat it. And we must never forget that the destinies of Europe and North America are inseparable; and that this is as true now as it was when NATO was founded 50 years ago. Of course, there will always be differences between Europe and America. We have been aptly called cousins, but we will never be mistaken for clones. Today, there are splits on trade and other issues--some of which are quite controversial. But do not exaggerate, these are differences within the family. However, I think I can speak for each of my Alliance colleagues when I say that on the central questions that affect the security and safety of our people, our Alliance is and will remain united, as it must. For the hopes of future generations are in our hands. We cannot allow any issue to undermine our fundamental unity. We must adapt our alliance and strengthen our partnerships. We must anticipate and respond to new dangers. And we must not count on second chances; we must get it right--now. This requires understanding that the more certain we are in preparing our defense, the more certain we may be of defending our freedom without war. NATO is the great proof of that. For its success over five decades is measured not in battles won, but rather in lives saved, freedoms preserved and wars prevented. That is why President Truman said that the creation of NATO was the achievement in which he took the greatest pride. Today we, too, have grounds for pride. For NATO enlargement is a sign that we have not grown complacent about protecting the security of our citizens. The nations entering our alliance today are the first new members since the Cold War's end, but they will not be the last. For NATO enlargement is not an event; it is a process. It is our common purpose, over time, to do for Europe's east what NATO has already helped to do for Europe's west. Steadily and systematically, we will continue erasing without replacing the line drawn in Europe by Stalin's bloody boot. When President Clinton welcomes his counterparts to Washington next month to mark NATO's 50th anniversary, they will affirm that the door of the Alliance does remain open; and they will announce a plan to help prepare aspiring members to meet NATO's high standards. But enlargement is only one element in our effort to prepare NATO for its second 50 years. The Washington Summit will be the largest gathering of international leaders in the history of Washington, D.C. It will include representatives from NATO and its partner countries--44 in all--and it will produce a blueprint for NATO in the 21st Century. Our leaders will, I am confident, agree on the design of an Alliance that is not only bigger, but also more flexible; an Alliance committed to collective defense, and capable of meeting a wide range of threats to its common interests; an Alliance working in partnership with other nations and organizations to advance security, prosperity and democracy in and for the entire Euro-Atlantic region. The centerpiece of the Summit will be the unveiling of a revised strategic concept that will take into account the variety of future dangers the Alliance may face. Since 1949, under Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, the core mission of our alliance has been collective defense. That must not change, and will not change. NATO is a defensive alliance, not a global policeman. But NATO's founders understood that what our alliance commits us to do under Article V is not all we may be called upon to do, or should reserve the right to do. Consider, for example, that when French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman signed the North Atlantic Treaty, he characterized it as ``insurance against all risks--a system of common defense against any attack, whatever its nature.'' During the Cold War, we had no trouble identifying the risks to our security and territory. But the threats we face today and may face tomorrow are less predictable. They could come from an aggressive regime, a rampaging faction, or a terrorist group. And we know that, if past is prologue, we face a future in which weapons will be more destructive at longer distances than ever before. Our alliance is and must remain a Euro-Atlantic institution that acts by consensus. We must prevent and, if necessary, respond to the full spectrum of threats to Alliance interests and values. And when we respond, it only makes sense to use the unified military structure and cooperative habits we have developed over the past 50 years. This approach shouldn't be controversial. We've been practicing it successfully in Bosnia since 1995. We are also taking steps, as we plan for the summit, to ensure that NATO's military forces are designed, equipped and prepared for 21st Century missions. And we expect the Summit to produce an initiative that responds to the grave threat posed by weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. Clearly, NATO's job is different now than when we faced a single monolithic adversary across a single, heavily-armed frontier. But NATO's purpose is enduring. It has not changed. It remains to prevent war and safeguard freedom. NATO does this not only by deterring, but also by unifying. And let no one underestimate its value here, as well. For if NATO can assure peace in Europe, it will contribute much to stability around the globe. The history of this century and many before it has been marked by shifting patterns within Europe as empires rose and fell, borders were drawn and redrawn, and ethnic divisions were exploited by aggressors and demagogues. Twice this century, conflicts arose which required American troops to cross the Atlantic and plunge into the cauldron of war. NATO and NATO's partners have closed that book and are authoring a new one. In collaboration with regional institutions, we are encouraging the resolution of old antagonisms, promoting tolerance, ensuring the protection of minority rights and helping to realize, for the first time in history, the dream of a Europe whole and free. So let us not hesitate to rebut those who would diminish the role of our alliance, dispute its value, or downplay the importance of its unity and preparedness. For if NATO does not respond to the 21st Century security challenges facing our region, who will? If NATO cannot prevent aggressors from engulfing whole chunks of Europe in conflict, who can? And if NATO is not prepared to respond to the threat posed to our citizens by weapons of mass destruction, who will have that capability? The 20th Century has been the bloodiest and most destructive in human history, and despite the Cold War's end, many threats remain. But we have learned some hard lessons from this history of conflict, and those lessons underlie all our planning for the Washington Summit. We know that when the democracies of Europe and America are divided, crevices are created through which forces of evil and aggression may emerge; and that when we stand together, no force on Earth is more powerful than our solidarity on behalf of freedom. That is why NATO is focused not only on welcoming new members, but also on strengthening its valuable partnerships with Russia, Ukraine and Europe's other democracies. Their inclusion and full participation in the transatlantic community is essential to the future we seek. For NATO's purpose is not to build new walls, but rather to tear old walls down. Five years ago, while serving as US Permanent Representative to the UN, I traveled with General Shalikashvili to Central and Eastern Europe, to outline President Clinton's plan for a Partnership for Peace. That concept continues to deepen and pay dividends for countries whether or not they aspire to NATO membership. Today, former adversaries are talking to each other, training with each other, carrying out missions together, and planning together for the future. By fostering that process, we prevent potentially dangerous misunderstandings, address present problems and lay a solid foundation for future cooperation. We also remind ourselves, that although NATO stands tall, it does not stand alone. The EU, OSCE and NATO and its partners form the core of a broader system for protecting vital interests and promoting shared values. We learned in Bosnia earlier this decade how vital such a system is. We face a test of that system now in Kosovo, and we welcome Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov's efforts in Belgrade today to help achieve our common goal. There, together, we have backed diplomacy with tools ranging from humanitarian relief to OSCE verifiers to the threatened use of NATO force. Together, we have hammered out an interim political settlement which meets the needs and respects the rights of all concerned. When talks resume next week, we must be firm in securing this agreement. We must be clear in explaining that a settlement without NATO-led enforcement is not acceptable because only NATO has the credibility and capability to make it work. And we must be resolute in spelling out the consequences of intransigence. To those abroad and in my own country who have raised doubts, I reply that the plan we and our partners have developed is not risk-free. But we prefer that risk to the certainty that inaction would lead to a renewed cycle of repression and retaliation, bloodletting and ethnic cleansing. The path we have chosen for our alliance in Kosovo is not easy; but it is right. It serves NATO interests, and it upholds the values of our alliance for which it was created and which we will defend. Today, as NATO embarks upon a new era, our energy and vision are directed to the future. But we are mindful, as well, of the past. For as we welcome three new members, we have a debt we cannot fail to acknowledge. In this room today are ambassadors and foreign ministers and generals and members of Congress. In this room, there is great pride and good reason for it. But let us never forget upon whose shoulders we stand. We pay homage to our predecessors and to the millions of soldiers and sailors and aviators and diplomats who, throughout the past half-century, have kept NATO vigilant and strong. We pay homage, as well, to those who fought for freedom on the far side of freedom's curtain. For the Berlin Wall would be standing today; the Fulda Gap would divide Europe today; the Warsaw Pact would remain our adversary today, if those who were denied liberty for so long, had not struggled so bravely for their rights. Let us never forget that freedom has its price. And let us never fail to remember how our alliance came together, what it stands for, and why it has prevailed. Upon the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty, President Harry Truman referred to the creation of NATO as a ``neighborly act.'' ``We are like a group of householders,'' he said, ``who express their community of interests by entering into an association for their mutual protection.'' At the same time, Canadian Secretary of State Lester Pearson said, ``The North Atlantic community is part of the world community, and as we grow stronger to preserve the peace, all free men and women grow stronger with us.'' Prime Minister Spaak of Belgium added, ``The new NATO pact is purely defensive; it threatens no one. It should therefore disturb no one, except those who might foster the criminal idea of having recourse to war.'' Though all the world has changed since these statements were made, the verities they express have not. Our alliance still is bound together by a community of interests. Our strength still is a source of strength to those everywhere who labor for freedom and peace. Our power still shields those who love the law and still threatens none, except those who would threaten others with aggression and harm. Our alliance endures because the principles it defends are timeless and because they reflect the deepest aspirations of the human spirit. It is our mission now, working across the Atlantic, to carry on the traditions of our alliance and prepare NATO for the 21st Century. To that end, we take a giant step today. And we look forward with confidence and determination to the historic summit in Washington and further progress tomorrow. Thank you all very much. (Applause)

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight and to argue that support for this resolution is the single-most helpful thing we can do for Yassir Arafat to continue the peace process. In recent months, I had occasion 3 times to discuss with Mr. Arafat and his associates this issue. Last summer, then Speaker Gingrich and Democratic Leader Gephardt led a small group of us to the area for discussions. Last December, the President went with a few of us to talk to both sides and we spent considerable time with Mr. Arafat discussing this issue. Earlier this year, I had the privilege of addressing the Palestinian National Council, along with Former Prime Minister Peres and the former head of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. My message on all three occasions was very simple: A unilateral declaration of statehood by Arafat would permanently destroy the peace process. Let me repeat that. If Arafat goes ahead with a unilateral declaration of statehood, whether it is on May 4 or May 25, or July 11, the peace process is over. Let me say to some of my colleagues, some on my side of the aisle who are straining for equivalence, the equivalence would be to call on Israel, not to unilaterally declare statehood. Israel has been a State for over 50 years, an ally of the United States, a member of the United Nations with diplomatic representation all over the world. There is no equivalence here, because the two sides are not equivalent. We are talking about a unique historic situation whereby a sovereign and independent state is in the process of voluntarily negotiating the surrender of territories it occupies, and possibly negotiating the creation by mutual consent of another state. Now, some have belittled this resolution as being not binding. Well, it may not be binding, but it surely has consequences. Let me state here and now so that there will not be any question or doubt about it, that if Arafat does declare unilaterally a Palestinian state, I intend to introduce legislation in this body which will cut off all aid to the Palestinian Authority instantaneously. So this is not an academic debate. Should it be necessary to introduce such legislation, it will pass overwhelmingly. Mr. Speaker, some think that since there have been technical violations on both sides of the Oslo Accords, we should discuss all of those. I think it is extremely important to realize that obviously there will be charges of technical violations of an incredibly complex, life and death agreement that might eventually solve this long- simmering crisis. But we are not talking about little technical violations. A unilateral declaration of state by Arafat terminates the peace process. Since I am passionately committed to the peace process for the sake of the Palestinian people, for the sake of the Israeli people, for the whole region and indeed, for global stability, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. It is a carefully crafted, balanced, reasonable resolution, the purpose of which is to save Arafat from the hotheads in his own camp. There are people within Arafat's group who are pushing him for a unilateral declaration of state. If he follows their advice, the peace process is doomed. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support this resolution. I commend my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for introducing it.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct privilege today to recognize the Mills-Peninsula Hospital, which is located in my congressional district. In an annual study, ``100 Top Hospitals: Benchmarks for Success,'' Mills-Peninsula was named one of the top hospitals for 1998 in the United States. The study was conducted by HCIA, a health care information company based in Baltimore, and William M. Mercer, a New York-based human resources management consulting firm. Nine measures of clinical, operational, and financial performance were used in the study to determine accurately the best hospitals. Mills-Peninsula is a not-for-profit health service organization, and it has managed to improve and maintain existing services, despite battling extreme difficulties associated with the costs of managed care. By combining the highest quality care with the most cost- efficient operation, Mills-Peninsula has increased the standard of medical care and quality of life in the Bay Area. We are truly honored to have such an outstanding hospital located in our area. Managed health care has sought to improve cost reductions and to streamline operations. The standards of excellence in health care management are becoming ever higher. Mills-Peninsula has thrived in this challenging atmosphere and continued to deliver a high level of care, and at the same time shown an ability to respond to change. Mr. Speaker, the recognition of Mills-Peninsula Hospital has only confirmed the high value which residents of my district already place on the hospital's services. I offer my deepest and warmest congratulation to those individuals that have contributed to the success of Mills-Peninsula Hospital. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the editorial praising Mills-Peninsula Hospital from The Independent be placed in the Record. Peninsula Hospital among top 100 Bravo to Peninsula Hospital for being named among the top 100 performing hospitals in the nation by the consulting firm of William M. Mercer Inc., of New York, NY, the honor is one that should reassure residents in the area that they have one of the top hospitals in the country taking care of their health needs. The study, naming Peninsula Hospital, was published in the December issue of Modern Health care magazine. This assessment of the nations benchmark acute care hospitals is published annually by Mercer and HCIA Inc., a data processing company based in Baltimore. The study considers three separate categories including financial management, operations and clinical practice. Each category is then broken down into smaller components and evaluated. The elements considered under clinical practices include mortality rates of complications during treatment. The information is published to show legitimate health care data about patients and health care facilities to measure performance. This is a study that is in its sixth year of identifying the top management teams and best run facilities in the country. The longer the publication studies industry trends, the more established and prestigious its list becomes. People throughout the country are concerned and interested in the performance of their community hospitals and this rating hospital care. In an interview with this newspaper, Mills-Peninsula CEO Robert Merwin explained the price pressures Peninsula is under, to maintain services at the hospital. Merwin explained that the business community, Medicare and the costs of managed care, put pressure on all hospitals throughout the country, so maintaining standards of excellence was a major challenge. We are happy to see that Peninsula has met that challenge and among the thousands of hospitals throughout the nation, been rated one of the best. That makes us proud of Peninsula and of the management and staff at the hospital who have carried the ball of excellence in recent years while the health care industry has been in radical change. We know what happens when change comes to an industry, when economic pressures for change bring so many disruptions to the way a hospital does business. We commend the folks at Peninsula for not letting these changes disrupt the quality of health care they provide to the community. This rating is welcome news, especially in light of the fact that a decision must be made soon to spend millions of dollars either retrofitting peninsula or rearing it down to build a new facility. We don't know which decision the powers to be will make but we do know that Peninsula is a very special hospital facility that is valued by everyone in the community. The rating only bears out the fact that its management and staff have been outstanding in face of unbelievable stress in the industry. We congratulate the people, all of them, that made this rating possible and look forward to the continuation of an evaluation that places Peninsula among the top 100 hospitals in the nation.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have the highest regard for all of my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber, and of course, I recognize, as we all must, that this is not a partisan issue. When President Bush asked this body to support him with respect to the Persian Gulf, I was one of those Democrats who proudly and publicly supported him. I want to pay tribute to Senator Dole for his courageous public statements and actions supporting the policy that we support. It is self-evident that this is the wrong time to deal with this issue. There may be no agreement for us to implement. But if we vote now, the likelihood of an agreement diminishes. How many innocent children and women have to be killed in the former Yugoslavia for us to talk about genocide? Had we acted in 1991, a quarter million innocent people who are now dead would be here, and 2\1/2\ million refugees would still be living in their homes. I know the difference between the Persian Gulf and Kosovo. Kosovo has no oil. That is the principle that is invoked here, under the table. Clearly we are not protecting our oil resources in Kosovo, as we did in the Persian Gulf. This ought not to be a partisan dispute. We are undermining NATO, that succeeded in destroying the mighty Soviet Union, if we as the leader of NATO bail out on our international responsibilities. If we listen closely, we hear the voices of isolationism reverberating in this Chamber. It is mindboggling. As we close this century, the lesson of it is that appeasement does not pay, that aggression must be resisted. I ask my colleagues to reject this rule, and to have this debate after an agreement will have been reached.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding this time to me. There is an air of unreality about this debate. Tomorrow, some of us will be at the Harry Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, when Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland will formally become members of NATO. NATO, this incredible defensive alliance, which kept the peace in Europe for two generations, which resulted in the collapse of the mighty Soviet Union, and which is the cornerstone of security, not just for Europe, but for much of the rest of the world, and we are now debating as to whether, after the Albanians and the Serbs agree and invite us, we might participate with the force of 4,000 in a NATO contingent of 28,000 to keep the peace in Kosovo. My wife and I went to Kosovo the first time maybe 35 years ago, and we have been back there many times since. It is the only place in Europe where one can find a beautiful young woman of 22 or 23 who has two teeth because they have no dental care. There is a grinding poverty that boggles the mind, and these people have been suppressed, persecuted, given third class citizenship for a long time. This is our opportunity to do a tiny bit, a tiny bit of what the great generation of the second war did under infinitely more dangerous circumstances with infinitely greater sacrifices. Sunday night, the two vice presidential candidates of the last presidential election, Al Gore and Jack Kemp, join me for the Washington premier of The Last Days, a movie about the Holocaust. The pictures of that movie will remain with everybody who will ever see that movie. Do we want such movies made of Kosovo? Have we not had enough slaughter and massacre and murder and extermination of innocent people there? The only thing that differentiates Kosovo from the Persian Gulf War is that there is no oil there. But there are principles there. The same principles that compelled President Bush decide to send not 4,000 NATO U.S. forces, but half a million American troops to the Persian Gulf; President Bush, who drew a line at Kosovo at Christmas 1992, when he said, we are drawing the line, we are not going to allow Bosnia to be repeated. Now we have another President, a Democratic President who says the same thing. One of the great heroes of the second war in public service, Senator Bob Dole, yesterday told us in committee he is passionately committed to this course of action. I am sick and tired of my colleagues saying, this is in Europe; let the Europeans deal with it. Sarajevo was in Europe. That was the genesis of the First World War. Czechoslovakia was in Europe. That was the genesis of the Second World War. These people who never learn, who are uneducable cannot carry the day today. I plead with my colleagues to give our government an opportunity to participate in a NATO peacekeeping force to the tune of 4,000 American soldiers to keep the peace. This is the only honorable way, and this is the only way not to undermine NATO and the hope of mankind.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. I have visited our troops in Bosnia on several occasions. One of the great miracles of the Bosnia venture is that not one single American soldier has been injured or killed as a result of that participation, but our presence, along with our NATO allies, has prevented the continuing bloodbath that has inflicted that territory. Now, no one is arguing that American troops should go to war in Kosovo. What we are advocating is a conclusion of an agreement between the Albanians and the Serbs in Kosovo, after which, upon invitation, a 28,000 person force would go to that country to keep the peace. Of the 28,000 soldiers, 4,000 should be members of our own armed forces. Kosovo, in a sense, is becoming a secondary issue in this debate. What we are talking about is the survival and the vitality of NATO. As I mentioned earlier today, some of us will be in Independence, Missouri, tomorrow at the Truman Library with the ambassadors and governmental leaders of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, as we invite them to join NATO. They will ask the question: Why should they join NATO if NATO is unwilling, upon invitation, to take part in a peacekeeping mission? The gentlewoman is talking about military readiness. What is the military readiness for if it is not to prevent the continuance of bloodshed upon reaching an agreement between the Albanians and the Serbs? This debate today in this House makes me awfully glad that some of my colleagues were not here when the decision was made to participate in the Second World War or the Korean War or the Persian Gulf War. Isolationism is rampant in this body. I repeat that. Isolationism is rampant in this body. If the Congress of the United States is not prepared to participate in a NATO peacekeeping mission, upon the invitation of the two parties, for goodness sake, what is NATO prepared to do? What is the purpose of NATO if it is not minimally to preserve peace in Europe? I ask my colleagues to reject my colleague's amendment and to accept the responsibility of the one remaining superpower for making a modest contribution, and I underscore it is a modest contribution, to a NATO effort to preserve the peace. Our friends in the United Kingdom are ready to send 8,000 people to Kosovo, twice as many as we are, yet the Brits' population is one-fifth of ours. What do we tell our friends in London when they are ready to send 8,000 people into that peacekeeping force; that they should do it all? Well, they have told us there will not be a NATO peacekeeping force unless we participate. It is only rational that this minimal participation on the part of the United States be approved overwhelmingly by this body. The voices of isolationism have often carried the day in the Congress of the United States. I hope to God this will not be one of those days.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today the international human rights community commemorates the fortieth anniversary of the uprising of the Tibetan people against Communist Chinese oppression. On March 10, 1959, the people of this sparsely populated mountain region rose up against a despotic regime intent on destroying its liberty, its culture, and its ancient religious heritage. Inspired by the leadership and courage of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan people stood up and repulsed Chinese efforts to deny them their individuality and their rights. We celebrate Tibetan National Day to pay tribute to their brave crusade. The uprising of March 10, 1959, was crushed by China's immense military might. The Beijing authorities promptly instituted martial law and used armed soldiers in their brutal effort to suppress the Tibetan people. The Dalai Lama was forced to flee to India in order to preserve his own life, and some 120,000 Tibetans joined him in exile. The government of India has graciously permitted the Tibetan people and His Holiness to remain in India. Chinese guns and tanks, however, could not destroy the indomitable spirit of the Tibetan people. Guided by the moral strength of the Dalai Lama, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 for his peaceful effort to resolve the conflict over Tibet, knowledge of the tragedy of the Tibetan people has spread from the Himalayan foothills to the consciousness of the international community. China's heavy-handed brutality continues to this day. Buddhist monks and nuns as well as others who value and seek to preserve Tibet's unique cultural and historical heritage have suffered imprisonment, torture, and constant abuse at the hands of Beijing authorities. All signs of Tibet's pre-1959 existence, from its religion to its architecture to its music, have been targets for Chinese officials seeking systematically to destroy every vestige of Tibet's identity. Mr. Speaker, our American democratic and pluralistic heritage and our principled views on religious tolerance and cultural diversity mandate that we stand firmly against these outrageous crime against international law and human decency. The Chinese Government has marked the 40th Tibetan National Day by continuing its decades-long strategy of spewing deceitful propaganda about the Dalai Lama and his followers. the chairman of the so-called ``People's Congress of Tibet'' declared that the Dalai Lama ``is the chief representative of the feudal serf system,'' and that ``under his rule, the Tibetan people were reduced to animal status.'' The overseas edition of the official People's Daily accused the Dalai Lama of attempting ``to stir up riots and terrorist activities.'' In stark contrast with these Chinese absurdities, the Dalai Lama has expressed a genuine desire to achieve a just and fair resolution of the Tibetan issue. His Five Point Peace Plan--one of the principal reasons for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize--reflects a thoughtful and reasoned position in his quest for a peaceful settlement. As his Holiness stated ten years ago in his Nobel acceptance speech in Oslo, his sole desire is that his homeland to become ``a sanctuary of peace and non-violence where human beings and nature can live in peace and harmony.'' The Dalai Lama is not asking too much. I invite my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to join me in urging Chinese authorities to take a more reasonable and more forthcoming position in dealing with representatives of His Holiness. It is time to make a serious effort to bring peace, justice, and religious freedom to the Tibetan people so that the Tibetans have the opportunity to preserve and perpetuate their unique culture. Mr. Speaker, this 40th anniversary is a sorrowful event, an occasion that we mark in sadness and regret. But we also mark this event with rejoicing that, despite four decades of brutal repression, the people of Tibetan continue their struggle. The Chinese have not succeeded. Growing legions of friends of Tibet around the world join them in their fight. This anniversary reminds us that the struggle will be long, but it also reminds us that ultimately it will be successful.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), one of the most effective and successful champions of human rights in this body.

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

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her very powerful and eloquent statement. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield as much time as he might consume to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), my friend, who has been a champion of all human rights causes globally and will now speak on the issue of China.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my friend and colleague. (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and I rise in strong support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and there are many observations that he made with which I agree. He has been an effective champion of human rights in China, and I pay tribute to him for his human rights efforts as they relate to China and other countries. But I need to correct the historical record as it comes to administration policy. As one who has opposed administration policy with respect to China under both Republican and Democratic administrations because I believe they both have been ill-advised, as the most recent spying episode so dramatically underscores, it is important to keep the record straight and to keep the bipartisan voice of Congress honest. Our Republican colleagues are in no position to be surprised that China has been spying on the United States. That spying has been going on during the last many years. It did not originate last year or the year before, and the previous 2 Republican administrations bear their full share of the responsibility as we now see the chickens coming home to roost. So the historical record must be made clear. China's human rights record is abominable. We have spent untold hours in committee and on this floor denouncing China's human rights record, ranging from forced abortion to the restriction of the right of individuals to practice their religion, from the lack of press freedom to the lack of political freedom, and recent developments in China clearly indicate that the human rights condition has deteriorated in recent months. It is now reaching a new low. There is not much dispute on this floor about the abominable human rights record of China. What this resolution calls for is for our administration to introduce and support at Geneva at the United Nations Human Rights Commission meeting a powerful resolution denouncing China's human rights record, and to lobby and lead the way so we will have enough friends and allies in that organization so that our resolution will, in fact, prevail. I think it is important for this administration to understand that the other body passed a similar resolution urging the administration to denounce China's human rights policy in Geneva by a vote of 99-to- nothing. When this debate is over, I will ask for a recorded vote in this body, and I suspect we will have a similar overwhelming vote calling on our administration to introduce and to lead the fight to denounce China's human rights record. We speak powerfully when we speak on a bipartisan basis. I am critical of our administration for not having introduced this resolution at last year's meeting, and I expect my Republican colleagues to be equally critical of previous Republican administrations for their attempt to sweep China's abominable human rights policy under the rug. Human rights transcend parties and differences. We should be demanding human rights for the people of China, and we should demand, whether we have a Republican or a Democrat in the White House, that the United States stand up for our own principles. I call on all of my colleagues to join me in urging our State Department to introduce and to lead to a successful vote a resolution denouncing China and China's abominable human rights policies. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to my friend and neighbor, the gentlewoman from San Francisco, California (Ms. Pelosi) someone who has been a leader in the fight for human rights in China.