Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

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

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

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's observations. We have no more requests for time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), a voice for human rights in all of Asia and indeed in a global sense, my colleague and neighbor from San Francisco, who has been a champion of human rights ever since she joined us in this body. It has been with a great deal of pleasure and pride that I have followed her incredibly successful and articulate struggles for the rights of oppressed people everywhere to live in freedom and decency.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding time to my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), let me call the attention of all Members here to the extraordinary profile that the New York Times ran on this remarkable Member of our body. I was very proud and pleased to read the well-deserved accolades that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) received in the Times. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), to speak on this issue. (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before yielding to my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), let me just say that some of us are particularly concerned with respect to Indonesia with the plight of the Chinese ethnic minority in that country. In the violent eruptions following the economic collapse there was a severe persecution of the Chinese ethnic minority involving large-scale rapes and abuse of women. The Indonesian government will need to understand that for it to be accepted into the family of civilized nations it will have to guarantee all human rights to all citizens of Indonesia irrespective of their ethnic background. Let me also say, as one who has been seized with the issue of East Timor and its population, that we welcome the favorable direction in which matters are now moving. But the people of East Timor, as indeed the Chinese ethnic minority in Indonesia, are entitled to live under a government of their own choice. They are entitled to all human rights, as are indeed all ethnic groups on the face of this planet. This election will give Indonesia an opportunity to abandon its former failed ways and to move towards a democratic and prosperous society. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my friend, who has just completed a very interesting and successful trip to the region.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first express my appreciation to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for bringing this resolution to the body. I rise in strong support of this resolution, and, Mr. Speaker, I first visited Indonesia in 1956. It was a country of enormous promise. It clearly is one of the wealthiest nations on this planet in terms of natural resources, and it has enormous human resources which, had they been led by farsighted and democratic leadership, would now be one of the most successful societies on the face of this planet. That clearly is not the case. Cronyism, corruption, lack of democracy, Mr. Speaker, resulted in a series of horrendously bad economic decisions which, when the Asian economic crisis erupted, forced Indonesia into an economic downward spiral. Millions of Indonesians are suffering and are on the verge of starvation and economic disaster. Our resolution expresses support for free, fair and transparent elections in Indonesia. It was reported out of the House Committee on International Relations last week with strong bipartisan support. We are pleased that Indonesia will have elections in June, and these elections will probably be the most important elections in the history of this young and potentially promising society. Our resolution supports the democratic aspirations of the Indonesian people and calls on all Indonesian citizens, of whatever ethnic background, to strive for a peaceful campaign and to respect fully the results of the elections. The resolution urges the government of Indonesia to take all steps necessary to ensure that the June elections are free and fair and transparent, and it also expects that the election laws under which the elections will take place will stand up to democratic scrutiny. Our resolution is strongly supportive of all domestic and international nongovernmental organizations and the government of the United States in the areas of voter education, technical assistance and election monitoring, and the resolution calls on other democratic societies that care about the future of Indonesia to provide similar aid. Mr. Speaker, these Indonesian elections in a country of over 200 million people could be a history-making step in making Southeast Asia an arena of democracy. It will at long last take root. It is critical that we have congressional observers during the course of these elections. It is critical that the American media be represented in full force. We must not allow the still existing anti-democratic forces to take control of these elections, and I ask all of my colleagues to support H.R. 32. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, every five days a young person is killed on the job in this country. Every 40 seconds a child is injured on the job. The occupational injury rate for children and teens is more than twice as high than it is for adults. These statistics are totally unacceptable for a civilized, advanced society like ours. On the eve of the 21st Century, this situation is a national disgrace and it is totally unacceptable. We must ensure that our children are safer at work. Education and healthy development are of primary importance during childhood and adolescence. Working should develop a young person's character, not burden them with potentially lifelong ailments. Work should help students excel in school, prepare them for a productive life and encourage their healthy development. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the alarming problems associated with child labor. I ask that a summary of an important study recently released by the Board on Children, Youth, and Families of the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine entitled ``Protecting Youth at Work'' be placed in the Record. The National Research Council is the nonprofit arm of the National Academy of Sciences and Engineering. The report was presented to Members of Congress and their staffs last week at a briefing sponsored by our esteemed colleague, Representative Martin Meehan. Mr. Speaker, ``Protecting Youth at Work'' is the product of a blue- ribbon panel of experts selected to represent a broad range of expertise in areas relating to child development, including adolescent social and biological development, public agency programs and practice, law, economics, sociology, psychology, occupational medicine and rural health programs. The committee laid down four general guiding principles for protecting youth at work. First, education and development are of primary importance during the formative years of childhood and adolescence and although work can contribute to these goals, it should never be undertaken in ways that compromise education or development. Second, the formative and malleable nature of childhood and adolescence requires a higher standard of protection for young workers than that accorded to adult workers. Third, businesses that employ young workers assume a higher level of social obligation which should be reflected in the expectations of society as well as in public policy. And finally, everyone under 18 years of age has the right to be protected from hazardous work, excessive work hours, and unsafe or unhealthy work environments, regardless of size of the enterprise in which he or she is employed, his or her relationship to the employer, or the sector of the economy in which the enterprise operates. ``Protecting Youth at Work'' urges Congress to authorize the US Department of Labor to limit the hours that 16- and 17-year-olds can work (limits already exist for children under the age of 16), eliminate child labor exemptions and exceptions in our labor laws which do not protect children working in the agricultural sector, and allocate more resources to reducing and eliminating the startling disparity of injuries and deaths among workers under the age of 18 as compared to that of adults. Mr. Speaker, our child labor laws should take into account changes in the modern workforce. For example, working during the school year has become much more commonplace among America's youth over the past decades--fewer than 5% of students held school-year jobs before 1950. In the 1990's, half of 16- and 17-year-olds work during the school year and 80% of all students have a job at some point during the school year while they are in high school. ``Protecting Youth at Work'' found that more children are working more hours than ever before in our nation's history. Mr. Speaker, more and more American children don't have enough time or energy to devote to their studies. While a job can promote self- esteem and teach discipline, working excessive hours takes too much away from school--academic performance can suffer and so does participation in extracurricular activities. ``Protecting Youth at Work'' found that young people who work more than twenty hours end up sacrificing sleep and exercise, and spend less time with their families, in addition to shortchanging their homework. Just look at the facts. The amount of teenage work is higher in the United States than in any other country in the industrialized world. Educators say that is part of the reason why American students lag behind their foreign counterparts. As policy makers, it is time for us to carefully weigh the benefits of a job against the toll excessive or unsafe work can take on a child's academic performance and healthy development. Mr. Speaker, my legislation, ``The Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act,'' which I introduced in the last Congress and which I will be reintroducing again soon in this Congress, reflects the problems and conclusions discussed in ``Protecting Youth at Work.'' This comprehensive domestic child labor law reform bill addresses two major aspects of child labor: the deaths and serious injuries suffered by young workers in the workplace and the negative impact the working excessive hours during the school year can have on a youth's education and academic performance. Specifically, ``The Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act'' proposes new sanctions for willful violations of child labors laws that result in the death or serious bodily injury to a child, strengthening existing limitations of the number of hours children under 18 can work while school is in session, protection for children under the age of 14 who are migrant or seasonal workers working in agriculture (except in the case of children of family farmers), requiring better record keeping and reporting of child labor violations, and specifying that minors may not use or clean certain types of hazardous equipment or engage in certain hazardous occupations, such as poultry processing and handling pesticides. Mr. Speaker, the aim of this legislation is to ensure that the job opportunities for America's youth are meaningful, safe and healthy, not to discourage children from working. I urge my colleagues to carefully review ``Protecting Youth at Work'' and to join me in supporting the enactment of meaningful child labor law reform legislation during this Congress. Protecting Youth at Work Congress should authorize the U.S. Department of Labor to limit the number of hours that all youths under the age of 18 can work during the school year. The jobs held by children and adolescents in the United States should not interfere with the educational opportunities and healthy development they need to thrive later in life. Congress also should eliminate current distinctions in child labor laws between agricultural and nonagricultural employment, says a committee of the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine in its report Protecting Youth at Work: Health, Safety, and Development of Working Children and Adolescents in the United States. In addition, because of the hazardous nature of many agricultural jobs--such as working with heavy equipment and around dangerous chemicals--Congress should examine the effects and feasibility of extending Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations to cover all young people, no matter where they work. More broadly, the Labor Department should review regulations intended to protect employed youth from hazards in the workplace. Because of the many changes that have occurred in the U.S. economy and society in the past 30 years, the federal government needs to update and enhance these regulations and adequately enforce the laws that cover children and adolescents at work.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the memory of noted publisher and free press advocate Morris B. Schnapper. Mr. Schnapper, who passed away last week at the age of 86, was a distinguished editor and author, a man devoted to providing the American people with more information about their government and its policies. The Public Affairs Press, founded by Schnapper, published more than 1,000 books and 500 pamphlets during his years at its helm. However, his most meaningful legacy rests in his unflinching commitment to providing information to the public, frequently in the face of intense resistance from government officials. In the 1950's, decades before the cloak of secrecy was lifted from many government actions, Schnapper passionately fought to allow the unrestricted publishing of speeches by government officials. In arguing that these addresses merited wide distribution to a larger audience he used a wealth of methods, from the courts to the newspapers. He affirmed his cause with a determination that originated out of his rise from a New York orphanage to one of Washington's most respected men of letters. Morris Schnapper's commitment to the First Amendment and his recognition of its inherent protections deserve the appreciation and gratitude of all Members of Congress and of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Congressional Record the Washington Post's obituary of Mr. Schnapper, published on February 7, 1999. I ask my colleagues to join me in offering our condolences to Morris Schnapper's family and friends. [From the Washington Post, Feb. 7, 1999] Book Publisher Morris Schnapper Dies at Age 86 (By Louie Estrada) Morris B. Schnapper, 86, a longtime Washington book publisher and a tenacious challenger of high-level government officials' practice of copyrighting their public speeches, died of renal failure Feb. 5 at the Carriage Hill Nursing Home in Silver Spring. He closed his publishing firm, Public Affairs Press, in the mid-1980s but continued until recent years to write articles on government copyright policies. It was a subject he first addressed in the late 1950s, when he sought to publish a series of speeches written and delivered by Navy Vice Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, who had played a major role in the development of the atomic submarine. Rickover denied permission for Mr. Schnapper to publish two of his speeches, saying that the texts were copyrighted and that he had made printing arrangements with another publisher. Mr. Schnapper filed suit in Federal District Court, arguing that the speeches were an official act and therefore public property. He lost the court case but pressed ahead anyway, once placing an advertisement in The Washington Post attacking government copyright claims as an infringement of constitutional guarantees of free speech and a free press. Before beginning his campaign against government- copyrighted publications, which earned him a reputation in some circles as a gadfly, Mr. Schnapper had been known primarily as a publisher of books and pamphlets on government affairs and social issues such as race relations. From a one-room office in a dilapidated town house near Capitol Hill, Mr. Schnapper operated his firm with a small staff that often included university professors who served as editors. He began forming the foundation of his business during his lunch hours and at night while working as a press spokesman for the U.S. Housing Authority in the 1930s. Born in New York City, he grew up in an orphanage there and later worked as a copy boy for the New York World and the New York Journal-American. Over the years, Public Affairs Press published more than 1,000 books and 500 pamphlets, including its biggest seller, an autobiography of Indian leader Mohandas K. Gandhi. With the help of his wife, Blanche, who died in 1974, he published his first book, ``Rival Unionism,'' by his friend Walter Gallenson. Public Affairs Press printed works by sociologist Vannevar Bush, journalist Dorothy Thompson, financier Bernard Baruch and historian Arnold Toynbee. Mr. Schnapper was the author of several books, including ``Constraint by Copyright,'' which he published in 1960, and ``American Labor: A Bicentennial History,'' published in 1975. Survivors include his companion, Esther Potash of Silver Spring; two children, Eric Schnapper of Bellevue and Amy Schnapper of Ashland, Ore.; and a grandson.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, we on the Pacific Coast of our nation face the periodic wrath of nature when the El Nino storms lash our coast. We faced that last year. We faced a similar series of El Nino winter storms in 1983 which wreaked havoc with our coast. I am sure my colleagues remember the images of Pacifica, California, in my Congressional District of homes sliding down cliffs into the pounding surf below. One of the most serious concerns along the Pacific Coast 12 miles south of San Francisco is the impact of these periodic storms upon a section of the Coast Highway, Highway 1, which is known locally as Devil's Slide. This part of the highway precariously hugs a cliff high above the pounding surf of the Pacific Ocean 600 feet below. In 1983, the winter storms forced the closure of Highway 1 at Devil's Slide for six months after a section of the roadway slipped into the ocean. In the winter of 1998 another series of winter storms resulted in the closure of the highway for several weeks. The closure of the highway at Devil's Slide has left residents and businesses dangerously isolated. Perennial closures of Devil's Slide have had a devastating effect on coastal communities and residents. Residents have endured unbearable commutes; access to emergency medical care and other services have been threatened; businesses have lost thousands of customers; and some businesses have failed as a result of the closure of the highway. For residents and businesses along the San Mateo County coast, it is vital to maintain the integrity of Highway 1 in this area. Mr. Speaker, 16 years ago, in 1983, heavy winter rains left a 250- foot-long crevice in the road which made the road impassible for 4 months. Then Chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, Glenn Anderson, held a series of field hearings in Half Moon Bay and Pacifica, CA, and committee members carefully surveyed the unstable roadway which was sliding into the sea at a rate of 3 inches a day. Committee members viewed 8-foot-deep cracks and fissures in the roadbed and determined that this vital transportation link was eligible for emergency Federal funds. At my request, the Congress provided funding for the permanent repair of Highway 1 at Devil's Slide. The California Department of Transportation [CALTRANS] made temporary repairs to the roadway and proposed building a controversial 4.5 mile long bypass around Devil's Slide as the permanent repair. Many of the residents opposed the bypass on environmental and other grounds, and construction was delayed in the courts for over a decade. More recently, a false sense of security, brought on by 10 years of drought, ended in January 1995, when heavy rains again closed Devil's Slide for extended periods, disrupting the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands of residents and businesses. Mr. Speaker, after public debate and lengthy lawsuits, the voters of San Mateo County resolved the conflict in a referendum in which the voters decided overwhelmingly in favor of the construction of a mile- long tunnel at Devil's Slide rather than the earlier proposal for a bypass which would involve extensive cutting and filling of Montara Mountain. The referendum amends the local coastal plan, substituting a tunnel as the preferred permanent repair alternative for Highway 1 at Devil's Slide, and prohibits any other alternative unless approved by the voters. Following the release of a Federal Highway Administration sponsored study which found that the tunnel is environmentally feasible and its costs would not differ significantly from the costs of a bypass, CALTRANS reversed its opposition to a tunnel at Devil's Slide. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced H.R. 520, the Devil's Slide Tunnel Act, to ensure that funds already appropriated and obligated for Devil's Slide will remain available to CALTRANS to build the tunnel at Devil's Slide. This legislation will provide greater flexibility to State transportation officials to use Federal funds already appropriated by Congress to fix this vital transportation link. Joining me as cosponsors of this legislation are bipartisan members of the Bay Area congressional delegation whose constituents are most affected by the Devil's Slide highway problem--my colleagues, Tom Campbell of San Jose, Anna Eshoo of Atherton, and Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco. Mr. Speaker, if local and state agencies and the citizens of a region determine that a better transportation alternative exists than the alternative for which funds have been obligated, as was the case for Highway 1 at Devil's Slide, then the Federal Government should provide greater funding flexibility, as long as all other Federal laws are complied with. It is important that we not permit these funds to lapse. The rebuilding of a severely damaged highway in its existing location may no longer be feasible, and in such cases funds already available to a community should continue to be available. History tells us that Devil's Slide will wash out again--it is only a matter of time. It is my hope that swift enactment of this legislation will ensure a permanent solution to the residents of the San Mateo County Coastside. I urge my colleagues to support the ``Devil's Slide Tunnel Act.''

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a recent editorial that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle about the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) extension to the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), also known as the BART SFO Extension. This editorial strongly endorses the existing program and plans for extension of BART to the airport and Millbrae. The BART SFO Extension will connect the 95-mile, four county intermodal rail transit system of the Bay Area to the rapidly growing San Francisco International Airport. Four new stations will provide service to the airport and cities on the Peninsula offering millions of travelers fast and convenient connections to and from the airport and the greater metropolitan San Francisco Bay Area. The BART SFO Extension will improve mobility, productivity and economic opportunity, while alleviating traffic congestion and air pollution throughout the Bay Area. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that 70 percent, or $2 billion, of the overall BART Extension program, which includes three extensions in the East Bay and the BART SFO Extension, is funded by state and local sources. All of the operating costs on each extension, including the BART SFO Extension, are being funded 100 percent locally. Only the BART SFO Extension is a recipient of federal capital funds. The project is an excellent model for federal, state and local cooperation. Mr. Speaker, the San Francisco International Airport is one of the country's fastest growing airports and has undertaken a locally funded $2.4 billion expansion program which includes a new international terminal and will double the size of the existing terminal. By the year 2006, SFO is projected to increase air passenger travel by 70 percent, or 51 million total travelers a year. Without the BART SFO Extension the impact on traffic congestion and air pollution along adjacent Bay Area freeways would be staggering. The BART SFO Extension is a long-awaited regional project and is taking shape after more than two decades of painstaking planning, consensus-building, and the tireless efforts of a remarkable partnership forged among local, regional, state and federal officials and funding entities. In the past year, significant progress has been made on the BART SFO Extension. As a longtime supporter of the BART SFO Extension, I am pleased to report that construction is well underway and progressing rapidly. Mr. Speaker, the recent editorial in the Chronicle notes that after many years of planning, analysis, public input and consensus-building, the scope of the project is well established and construction is in high gear. Naturally, cashflow needs are substantial during the construction phase. In order to keep costs within budget and avoid expensive increases in financing costs and construction delays, it is imperative that BART secure federal appropriations consistent with levels identified in the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) funding schedule and as requested by the President in his budget submitted to the Congress yesterday. Mr. Speaker, it is time that we, as federal partners in this project speak with one voice and commit the resources promised to deliver this project. The BART SFO Extension is a sound investment in our nation's future transportation infrastructure and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting appropriations that meet the FFGA targets. Keep BART-to-SFO on Track [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 11, 1999] A small group of Peninsula activists continues to try to stymie BART's plans to run train service to San Francisco International Airport. Its latest argument is that the $1 billion project, now under construction, should be scaled back because it is running over budget and federal funding is coming in slower than expected. Specifically, the Coalition for a One-Stop Terminal (COST) has suggested that BART should scrap the portion that would extend service south of the airport, to a Millbrae station. Given the importance of this project, we recently invited representatives of BART and COST if for an Editorial Board meeting to debate the issues. While it was clear that BART does have some serious budget problems with the project, it was equally apparent that elimination of the Millbrae station would not make any sense from either an economic or transportation-planning standpoint. For starters, scaling back the project would be inviting Congress to reduce the funding even further. And a perception of controversy on this project would make it easier for lawmakers to justify shifting the money to projects in other regions. Also, the airlines have agreed to put $113 million into the project. A major revision of the plans, such as eliminating the Millbrae extension, would require renegotiation of that hard-won pact--with the possibility of a smaller airline contribution. Moreover, the purpose of this project is to get air travelers to take mass transit to SFO. It would seem imperative to have at least one stop south of the airport. Also, the Millbrae station would have a convenient cross- platfom connection with Caltrain. The debate about the best way to bring BART to the airport has been settled. It is time to stop the obstructionist tactics and make a strong, unified regional pitch for full congressional funding. The region's leaders should be striving to keep this project on budget and on schedule for its December 2001 completion.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to Anthony S. Governale, one of San Mateo County's most dedicated public servants. Tony passed away on December 29, 1998, leaving behind a legacy of community service that made a significant difference in the lives of innumerable Bay Area residents. He will be sorely missed by all of us who knew him and all of us who benefited from his lifetime of public service. Many people talk about the frustration of politics and about the inability of a single individual to effect change through government. Tony Governale's life stands as a strong rebuttal to these skeptics. Tony did not merely talk about building a more vibrant America for his children and grandchildren--he volunteered his time and his considerable energy and his insight on behalf of political candidates who shared his progressive beliefs. He masterminded a number of important campaigns, and he served for some time as the president of the San Mateo County Democratic Council. When his reputation as a community leader provided him with the opportunity to assist his beloved City of San Bruno in an official capacity, he seized that challenge. Tony served as a member of the City Council for eight years, and for two years of that time he served as mayor. He was a key figure in guiding San Bruno through a decade of growth and progress. His commitment to performing his public responsibilities, as well as his tireless efforts to reach out and involve the entire community in the decisions of its government, made him one of San Mateo County's most beloved citizens. Tony's public service was by no means confined to politics and government. As the longtime executive director of the Daly City-Colma Chamber of Commerce, he used his organizational skills and persuasive talents to foster the development of one of California's most dynamic business areas. He was instrumental in the establishment of the San Mateo County Health Center Foundation, which raises funds to improve the lives of patients at the San Mateo County General Hospital. He served on the governing board of the Shelter Network of San Mateo County, on the Board of Directors of the San Mateo County Fair, and as an active participant in many other civic organizations throughout the Bay Area. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in acknowledging the extraordinary life and accomplishments of Tony Governale and in extending condolences to his wife, Helen, and his fine family. It is my hope that Tony's family can take comfort in the realization that his important contributions to our community are an outstanding and a fitting memorial to him for generations to come.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) is a true national treasure. It provides open space and recreation in the midst of a densely populated urban area, and it is one of our Nation's most heavily used national parks. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation, H.R. 168, which would expand the boundaries of the GGNRA to include an additional 1,300 critical acres of land adjacent to existing GGNRA parkland. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has the bipartisan support of the entire Bay Area Congressional Delegation. Joining me as cosponsors of this legislation are our colleagues Nancy Pelosi, Anna Eshoo, Tom Campbell, George Miller, Lynn Woolsey, Pete Stark, Ellen Tauscher, Barbara Lee, and Zoe Lofgren. H.R. 168, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act, will permit the National Park Service to acquire carefully selected critical natural areas in San Mateo County, primarily in the area around the City of Pacifica. National Park Service officials in the Bay Area conducted a boundary study to evaluate the desirability of including additional lands in and around Pacifica within the GGNRA. During the preparation of the Park Service study, a public forum was held to gather comments from area residents, and local input was reflected in the final study. The Pacifica City Council adopted a resolution endorsing the addition of these areas to the GGNRA. The GGNRA and the Point Reyes National Seashore Advisory Commission also urged the addition of these new areas to the park. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has the strong support of local environmental advocacy and preservation groups. The Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club contacted me to express support for this important legislation. In a letter endorsing this bill, the Sierra Club wrote that ``by expanding the boundaries of the GGNRA, the legislation would allow acquisition of parcels which are natural extensions of the park.'' The letter continued that this legislation ``would protect both views and habitats as well as provide additional recreational opportunities for local residents as well as visitors to the Bay Area. The open spaces and the vistas from these sites are national treasures and it is appropriate to include them in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. By including them in GGNRA, visitors to the Bay Area will be given a chance to experience their wonder.'' H.R. 168 would expand the boundary of GGNRA to permit the inclusion of lands directly adjacent to existing parkland as well as nearby lands along the Pacific Ocean. The upper parcels of land offer beautiful vistas, sweeping coastal views, and spectacular headland scenery. Inclusion of these lands would also protect the important habitats of several species of rare or endangered plants and animals. The legislation offers improved access to existing trails and beach paths and would protect important ecosystems from encroaching development. The GGNRA Boundary Adjustment Act would also permit the inclusion of beautiful headlands along the coast into GGNRA. The coastal headlands of San Pedro Point, the Rockaway Headland, Northern Coastal Bluffs, and the Bowl & Fish would be included in the GGNRA under this legislation. These parcels would offer park visitors scenic panoramas up and down the coast, views of tide pools and offshore rocks, sweeping views of GGNRA ridges to the east, as well as additional access to the Pacific Ocean. Mr. Speaker, throughout my service in Congress, I have had a strong interest in preserving the unique natural areas of the Peninsula. In the early 1980's, I fought for the inclusion in GGNRA of Sweeney Ridge, which includes the site from which Spanish explorers first sighted the San Francisco Bay in the 18th century. The ridge affords a unique panorama of the entire Bay. In 1984, in the face of a long and hard battle waged by myself and former Congressmen Leo Ryan and Phil Burton, the Reagan Administration acquiesced, and Sweeney Ridge became a part of our protected natural heritage. In the early 1990's, I authored and secured passage of legislation to add the Phleger Estate to the GGNRA. The Phleger Estate includes over a thousand acres of pristine second-growth redwoods and evergreen forests adjacent to the Crystal Springs watershed in the mid-Peninsula. The Federal Government paid one-half of the cost of acquiring the Phleger Estate. The other half of the cost was paid for through private contributions raised by the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST). Our distinguished colleague, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, played a key role in winning congressional approval of the Federal Government's share of the purchase. The Phleger Estate is now part of the GGNRA and it has become an important hiking and recreation area on the Peninsula. Mr. Speaker, preserving our country's unique natural areas must be one of our highest national priorities, and it is one of my highest priorities as a Member of Congress. We must preserve and protect these areas for our children and our grandchildren today or they will be lost forever. Adding these new lands in and around Pacifica to the GGNRA will allow us to protect these fragile areas from development or other inappropriate uses which would destroy the scenic beauty and natural character of this key part of the Bay Area. I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 168, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to one of the most remarkable legislators in the history of the great golden State of California--the Honorable Quentin L. Kopp. An independent by political affiliation and by personal nature, Quentin Kopp is a San Francisco institution. His 27 years in public office began with his service as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He has served on virtually every local government policy- making body in the Bay Area, in addition to his accomplished career as a practicing trial lawyer. Quentin's record includes a herculean effort to bring the 1985 Superbowl and the summer Olympic Games to our area. He continued his distinguished public service as a member of the California State Senate, where his prodigious 12-year tenure was only curtailed this past year by voter-mandated term limits. A fiscal conservative, Quentin guards the public purse as zealously as he guards his own. He is a public reformer who has insisted upon open government, campaigns that fully disclose contributions, and the elimination of conflicts of interest. Furthermore, he possesses a vocabulary that dwarfs Noah Webster's and a rhetorical style that rival Daniel Webster's. He is rightly renowned for his ability to simultaneously please, baffle, inspire, and incite his loyal constituency. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the State Senate Committee on Transportation, Quentin Kopp has amassed an enviable legislative record: creation of the California High Speed Rail Authority, development of the 1989 Transportation Blueprint for the 21st Century, coordination of public transit agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area, and securing funding for the seismic retrofitting of the Bay Area's bridges. Senator Kopp's longtime and articulate advocacy of the extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit system to San Francisco International Airport--a critical issue which has involved many of our colleagues in this House--has been vital in assuring Bay Area residents their desire to have Bart to the Airport! Quentin Kopp's imposing height, unforgettable visage, and booming voice, infused with tones of his native Syracuse, New York, heralds his legendary tardy public appearances. But all of us have found that it is worth the wait to hear Quentin's views on public issues. He has an innate understanding of Abraham Lincoln's caution that ``you cannot please all of the people all of the time,'' and this has produced in him the predilection for honest and unedited dialogue which is so appreciated by his constituents. Mr. Speaker, the legislative branch's loss is the judicial branch's gain. Senator Quentin Kopp is now addressed as the Honorable Quentin Kopp, Judge of the Superior Court of San Mateo County, a position to which he was appointed on January 2 of this year. Quentin does not need the judicial robe to augment his commanding, magisterial presence, but all of us in San Mateo County will benefit from his willingness to exercise wit and wisdom in his new post. It is my sincere wish, Mr. Speaker, that Judge Kopp will find intellectual satisfaction, professional fulfillment and personal happiness in this new opportunity to continue his public service.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on December 5, Albert Gore, Sr.--who served 14 years as a member of this House and another 18 years as a member of the United States Senate--died at his home in Carthage, Tennessee. I knew Senator Gore, Mr. Speaker, and I have great respect for this outstanding gentleman and distinguished public servant. During his 32 years of service in the Congress, Senator Gore established a legacy that all of us can envy. He was the principal Senate author of the legislation that created the Interstate Highway System which was adopted by the Congress in 1956. He was a voice of reason and honor in supporting civil rights at a time when few southern political leaders would dare to take such a principal stand. He expressed his opposition to the war in Viet Nam, and that courageous position ultimately cost him his seat in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of attending the Memorial Service for Senator Albert Gore, Sr., in Nashville on December 8. On that occasion, our Vice President Al Gore delivered a moving eulogy to his father. No finer tribute could be paid to any father than the honor which Vice President Gore paid to his father last week. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Vice President's remarks be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to read them and join me in celebrating the life and legacy of Senator Gore. Remarks by the Vice President at the Funeral of His Father, Former Senator Albert Gore, Sr. War Memorial Auditorium, Nashville, Tennessee, December 8, 1998 The Vice President: President and Mrs. Clinton; so many honored guests from our nation and our state. The Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. My father was the greatest man I ever knew in my life. Most of you know him for his public service and it could be said of him, in the words of Paul, that this man walked worthy of the vocation wherewith he was called. There were those many, many who loved him--and there were a few who hated him. Hated him for the right reasons. It's better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not. My father believed, in the words of the Scripture, ``Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you.'' (Laughter.) He made decisions in politics that were such that he could come home and explain to his children what he had decided and why. He went into the world with peace; he held fast to that which was good. He rendered to no one evil for evil. He was of good courage. He strengthened the fainthearted. He supported the weak. He helped the afflicted. He loved and served all people who came his way. None of this was a secret to the world. As most of you know, there was a time when some people thought my father should seek the highest office in the land. Here's what he said about that idea: ``The lure of the presidency never really overwhelmed me, though, there were times when the vice presidency seemed extremely attractive.'' (Laughter.) Now, that's humility. (Laughter.) And he did love mercy and do justly. The last advice he gave me, two weeks ago, when he was almost too weak to speak, was this: Always do right. He was born in an isolated, poor dirt farm on the banks of the Roaring River in Jackson County, Tennessee. His father was a friend of Cordell Hull who, of course, later made all the families in this part of the country proud by becoming a congressman and a senator, and then Secretary of State. My grandfather and Cordell Hull floated logs down the Cumberland River to the point where it meets the Caney Fork at Carthage. My father's boyhood dreams were taken by the currents of both men's lives. He was always a farmer, and he became a statesman. Soon after he was born, his whole family moved to Smith County, to a place just west of Carthage called Possum Hollow. He grew up in what he described as a self-giving, self-respecting household. and he said that, although the chores were heavy and the discipline absolute, there was love in our family and reverence for each other. He went to work as a teacher, in a one-room schoolhouse in a mountain community in Overton County named Booze (phonetic). (Laughter.) He was 18 years old and had three months of college. His students called him Professor Gore. (Laughter.) He read voraciously and taught himself to use language with precision. ``The Leatherstocking Tales'' were his favorites. I always marveled at his vocabulary and, as I grew older, at his unusual pronunciation of certain words. For example, instead of ``woond'' he always said ``wownd.'' I used to challenge him on the words I was certain he'd mispronounced. But invariably the dictionary also contained his preferred version, with the italic note: ``archaic.'' (Laughter.) As many have said since his passing, he was an original. As he continued his education at Murfreesboro State Teachers College, and continued working in all his free hours, he learned the lessons of hard times, trucking livestock to market only to find that they had sold for less than the hauling fee. The Great Depression awakened his political conscience. He often told me of the deep emotions he felt watching grown men with wives and children they could neither feed nor clothe, on farms they could no longer pay for. Grown men who were so desperate that tears streamed down their cheeks when they received their meager checks for a whole season's work on their crops. The kindling for his political philosophy piled up on Sunday afternoons among the whittlers, with whom he sat under the shade trees of the Carthage Square, and listened as Congressman Hull talked of important business in the Nation's Capital. When my father first heard Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the radio, the kindling caught fire. He became the youth chairman in Tennessee for FDR in 1932. The following year, he became a candidate himself, for the first time, for Smith County's Superintendent of Schools. He lost the election, and then his teaching job--(laughter)--but he gained respect from those who heard him. Indeed, when the man who won the race unexpectedly turned gravely ill soon after the election, he surprised the County Court by recommending my father as his replacement before he died. This gift from his dying former rival made a deep and lifelong impression on my father. It was one of the reasons why he never said a harsh word about any of his opponents for the rest of his career. He soon began YMCA night law school, even as he continued as Superintendent of Schools, and awoke well before dawn to also tend his crops. I don't think I ever saw him tired, but he must have been sleepy after such long days and nights, facing an hour's drive yet to return from Nashville to Carthage on old Highway 70. So he went looking for coffee. And he found it at the old Andrew Jackson Coffee Shop, which stood not 100 yards from here. He loved to tell the story of how the coffee didn't taste good unless it was poured by a beautiful young waitress named Pauline LaFon. She was going to law school by day and working nights. They say opposites attract. (Laughter.) They didn't marry right away; she left for Texarkana, put up her shingle, and practiced oil and gas law. But his coffee turned bitter, and eventually he persuaded her to come back as his wife. Of all the lessons he taught me as a father, perhaps the most powerful was the way he loved my mother. He respected her as an equal, if not more. He was proud of her. But it went way beyond that. When I was growing up, it never once occurred to me that the foundation upon which my security depended would ever shake. As I grew older, I learned from them the value of a true, loving partnership that lasts for life. After managing the successful campaign of Governor Gordon Browning, he became Tennessee's first Commissioner of Labor, and started unemployment compensation in the face of powerful opposition. He enforced mine inspection laws for the first time in our history. He administered our first minimum wage law; it was 25 cents an hour. He defended the right to organize. He was always, always for working men and women. He loved practical jokes. His humor often had an edge. One Saturday night in the early 1930s, at a party he organized in a barn by the Cumberland River for a group of friends in Carthage, he planted the suggestion that quite a few rattlesnakes had been seen in the area the preceding day. Then, surreptitiously, in the shadows thrown by the fire, he attached a fishhook to the pant-leg of his friend, Walter Merriman. At the other end of the hook was tied a large black snake he had killed in the barn before the party guests arrived. Rejoining the circle, he bided his time for a moment, and then suddenly pointed towards Merriman's leg and shouted, ``Snake!'' The more Merriman jumped and ran, the more determined the pursuing snake appeared. (Laughter.) The prank worked a little too well when the fishhook dug into Merriman's calf. (Laughter.) Certain that it was a rattlesnake's fang, he collapsed in fear. (Laughter.) It took several months for the friendship to be repaired-- (laughter)--but the story became such a local legend that someone told me about it again last night at the wake. It's difficult to follow the rhythm of his life without hearing the music that held him in its sway ever since the spring day a fiddler named Uncle Barry Agee played at the closing ceremonies of Miss Mary Litchburg's first-grade class. It was a magical experience that ignited a passion for playing the fiddle, so powerful that, later in his life, he sometimes worried that, if he gave into it, it would somehow carry him away from the political purposes to which he was also powerfully drawn. Before long, by the grace of his mother and with the help of his brother, he marshaled the impressive sum of $5 to buy his own fiddle, and soon thereafter his classmates nicknamed him Music Gore. He always told lots of stories, but without a doubt the one he told most often was about a Possum Hollow hoedown held at his house, to which several musicians were invited, including a traveling mandolin player with one leg named, Old Peg, who spent the night in their home. My father had just finished the eighth grade and his devotion to music had become, in his words, all-absorbing. The next morning he helped his father hitch up the harness for Old Peg's horse and buggy. Each time he told this story, the buggy grew more dilapidated. Before long, it had no top; the harness was mostly baling wire and binding twine. He counted that scrawny horse's ribs a thousand times for me and my sister, and then counted them many times again for his grandchildren. As Old Peg left the sturdy Gore household, the buggy was practically falling apart. As the impoverished picker wobbled precariously down his less-traveled road, my grandfather waited until he was just out of hearing range, then put his hand on my father's shoulder and launched a sentence that made all the difference: ``There goes your future, Albert.'' (Laughter.) My grandfather's humor had an edge to it, too. (Laughter.) Don't ever doubt the impact that fathers have on their children. Children with strong fathers learn trust early on, that their needs will be met; that they're wanted; that they have value. They can afford to be secure and confident. They will get the encouragement they need to keep on going through any rough spots they encounter in life. I learned all those things from my father. He made all the difference. Boys also learn from their fathers how to be fathers. I know I did. When my father first ran for Congress, as the age of 29, he worried that people would think he was too young, so he vowed to always wear his coat and he affected a formal demeanor. With Old Peg still wobbling through his unknown future, candidate Gore vowed also to never play the fiddle-- in public. Which brings me to what was, by our official family count, my father's second-most frequently told story. It's Saturday night in Fentris County, July 1938. The crowd had gathered in the hot, crowded courtroom for my father's speech on reciprocal free trade. (Laughter.) There's a bustle through the door at the rear of the crowd. Three of my father's musician friends are working their way through the crowd toward the podium, and one of them holds a fiddle over his head. He, my father, speaks louder and more rapidly about the evils of tariffs, hoping, he claims, that the fiddle will go away. By now, though, his alter ego is standing directly in front of him, holding the fiddle in outstretched arms and demanding loudly, ``Play us a tune, Albert?'' Trapped by this powerful drama, he seizes the fiddle and unleashes his music. And then the crowd goes wild. My father always chuckled when he delivered his favorite punchline, ``They brought the house down.'' (Laughter.) Once he was reconciled to who he really was, there was no turning back, and the crowds did love it. He brought the house down wherever he went. In August, he was elected in the Democratic primary. That was it, because back then no Republicans ever ran. In September he went to Washington with his wife and baby daughter, my sister Nancy, not one year old, and he was invited to play his fiddle in Constitution Hall with Eleanor Roosevelt in the audience. Fourteen years later, when I was four, he moved to the Senate. The incumbent he defeated, Senator Kenneth D. McKellar was a powerful chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and sought to remind the voters of his power to bring money to the state with his omnipresent slogan, ``A thinking feller votes McKellar.'' In keeping with my father's campaign philosophy had a negative word about his opponent and always admonished his supporters never to remove a McKellar sign. Instead, acting on my mother's advice, we put up new sign directly underneath McKellar's--every time we found a sign that said, ``The thinking feller votes McKellar,'' we put our new sign directly underneath it proclaiming, ``Think some more and vote for Gore.'' (Laughter.) By defeating McKellar, and more broadly, the Crump machine, he helped to establish the terms of a new politics for Tennessee and the entire South--a progressive politics that rejected race baiting and connected our region to the rest of America. And he carried those values on to the national stage. In 1956, my father hoped to be Adlai Stevenson's running mate. So did Estes Kefauver, who felt he had earned it. And so did my father's friend and Senate classmate, John F. Kennedy. It was quite a convention. I'm particularly proud that my father was way ahead of his time in fighting for civil rights. Discrimination against blacks deeply offended his sense of justice. He talked about it to Nancy and me often. When I was eight years old, we lived in a little house in Carthage on Fisher Avenue, halfway up a hill. At the top of the hill was a big, old mansion. One day as the property was changing hands, the neighbors were invited to an open house. My father said, ``Come, son, I want to show you something.'' So we walked up the hill and through the front door. But instead of stopping in the parlor or the ornate dining room or the grand staircase with all the guests, my father took me down to the basement, and point to the dark, dank, stone walls and the cold mettle rings lined up in a row--slave rings. Long after he left the classroom, my father was a teach. And I thank God that he taught me to love justice. Not everyone was eager to learn. One unreconstructed constituent once said, in reference to African Americans, though that was not the term he used, ``I don't want to eat with them, I don't want to live with them, I don't want my kids to go to school with them.'' To which my father replied gently, ``Do you want to go to heaven with them?'' After a pause came the flustered response, ``No, I want to go to hell with you and Estes Kefauver.'' (Laughter.) All that driving between Carthage and Nashville, and between Carthage and Washington, made him impatient for better roads. During World War II, he had been the first congressman to decline a commission as an officer and joined the Army as a private. FDR called all the congressmen back from service. He later went back in, and during his service in Germany, he was impressed by the autobahn. In 1956, he personally authored and passed into law the Interstate Highway Bill, the largest public works endeavor in the history of humankind. We traveled down here this morning from Carthage on old Highway 70, the same road he first took to Nashville 75 years ago. It's a long way. He's taking his last trip home on I-40, a part of the 44,000 miles of interstate that he created. He wrote and passed the first Medicare proposal ever to pass on the Senate floor, in 1964. One year later, after the Democratic landslide, Medicare became law. For more than a decade he controlled all tax policy on the Senate floor, because the majority of his colleagues had absolute trust in his conscience, his commitment to fairness, and his keen understanding of the law. He was the best speaker I ever heard. When he spoke on the Senate floor the cloakrooms emptied, the galleries began to fill, the pages sat in rapt attention. He had a clarity and force that was quite remarkable. People wanted to hear him speak and they wanted to know what he said, because they knew that whatever he said he believed with his heart. Time and again, with the crispness of his logic and the power of his oratory, he moved his listeners to adopt his opinions and cheer. Indeed, in his very first speech on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1939, the next day The New York Times reported that his remarks--and I quote-- ``stopped the show, and received an ovation of proportions such as are usually reserved for elder statesmen.'' His speech changed enough votes to defeat the bill he opposed. That's what happens when you bring the house down. Keeping alive the tradition of Hull, he fought tirelessly for reciprocal free trade--and he always emphasized that word ``reciprocal.'' But he often quoted Hull, his mentor, as saying, ``When goods do not cross borders armies do.'' He was an early supporter of Israel. As chairman of the Foreign Assistance Appropriations Subcommittee, in 1948, he authored and passed the first American aid to the new Jewish state. He was the nation's leading expert on outer space law and authored the treaty banning weapons from space. He led the fight to negotiate and ratify the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, an agreement which many believe was a turning point in the nuclear arms race. And of course, he was an early, eloquent, and forceful opponent of the Vietnam War--and it cost him his seat in the Senate. My father was brave. I mean really brave. He opposed the poll tax in the '40s, and supported civil rights in the '50s. By the time he was in his final Senate term, I was old enough to understand clearly the implications of the choices he made when he repeatedly rejected the advice of many fearful political allies who had urged him to trim his sails. He was proud to support the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He was damned if he was going to support Hainesworth or Carswell, Nixon's suspect nominees for the Supreme Court. And I was so proud of that courage. And even then, he almost defied the odds and won. But a new ill wind was blowing across the land. And in many ways he was unprepared for the meaner politics that started in 1970. For example, he never, ever had a press secretary on his payroll, for 32 years. He was offended by the very thought of using taxpayers' money to pay the salary of someone whose principal job was to publicly flatter him. (Laughter.) He preferred to speak plainly for himself. Indeed, many older Tennesseans will tell you that what they remember most about my father was his Sunday radio broadcast on WSM, where he presented the news from Washington ``as I see it.'' The night he lost in 1970, he made me prouder still. He said, defeat may serve as well as victory to shake the soul and let the glory out. And then he turned the old southern segregationist slogan on its head and declared, ``The truth shall rise again.'' I heard that. The next day was the first time I ever remember our roles being reversed, the first time I gave back to him what he taught me. We were in a canoe on the Caney Fork, just the two of us. Near to despair, he asked, ``What would you do if you had 32 years of service to the people given to the highest of your ability, always doing what you thought was right, and had then been unceremoniously turned out of office? What would you do?'' I responded, ``I'd take the 32 years, Dad.'' It's not correct to say that he went back to his farm; throughout his entire career in public service he never left his farm. He loved to raise Angus cattle. In the audience today are quite a few Angus breeders from around the country who were among his closest friends. It was his recreation. He always said, ``I'd rather find a new black calf in the weeds than a golf ball in the grass.'' (Laughter.) Our farm was also an important school where he taught me every day. He must have told me a hundred times the importance of learning how to work. He taught me how to plow a steep hillside with a team of mules. He taught me how to clear three acres of heavily wooded forest with a double- bladed axe. He taught me how to take up hay all day in the sun and then take up the neighbor's hay after dinner by moonlight before the rain came. He taught me how to deliver a newborn calf when its mother was having trouble. He taught me how to stop gullies before they got started. He taught me how to drive, how to shoot a rifle, how to fish, how to swim. We loved to swim together in the Caney Fork River, off a big flat rock on the backside of his farm. Once my father was giving a magazine reporter from New York City a short tour of the farm when he came across a cow stuck in the river mud. The reporter had no idea what to make of it when he stripped naked and waded into the mud, emerging a half hour later with his cow. (Laughter.) After he left the Senate he went into business. For ten years he ran the second largest coal company in America, driving back and forth on the interestate connecting Tennessee with Lexington, Kentucky. At the time of his death he was still serving as the senior director on the board of Occidental Petroleum. But just as with farming, he had always been in business. He owned a feed mill, a hardware store, and sporting goods store, a towing and auto repair shop. He sold boats and motors. He had a gasoline station. He leased the space for three restaurants, a barber shop, a beauty shop, a natural gas distributor, a veterinarian's office, and a union hall. He ran a commercial egg production house with 10,000 chickens. He build and operated the first so-called pig parlors in this part of the country. He developed real estate and built houses and apartments for rent. He was always busy. When I eventually left journalism and entered politics, he was also a source of invaluable advice in my races for the House and Senate, and later when I ran for President he personally campaigned in every single county in both Iowa and New Hampshire. I constantly run into people in both states who know him well, not from his days in the Senate, but from his days as a tireless octogenarian campaigner. In 1992, when then Governor Clinton asked me to join his ticket, my father became an active campaigner once again. At the age of 84, he and my mother took their own bus trip that year, and what a crew was on that bus--Albert and Pauline Gore, Tony Randall, Mitch Miller, and Dr. Ruth. (Laughter.) He convinced one young man from our campaign to come back to the farm with him. But the fellow soon left, and asked me, how do you tell a man who is working beside you and is 84 years old that you are quitting because it's too hot and the work is too hard? (Laughter.) I could have told him I learned the answer to that one when I was still young--you don't. (Laughter.) At 85, he embarked on a major new project--the antique mall and car museum in south Carthage. Two years ago, when he was 89, he was still driving his car. I had great difficulty persuading him to stop. When I asked my friends and neighbors in Carthage to help, one of them said, ``Oh, don't worry, Al, we know his car--we just get off the road when we see him coming.'' Once, though, he didn't know his own car. He left the store, got in somebody else's car and drove home. (Laughter.) Carthage is the kind of place where people often leave the keys in the ignition. Luckily, the store owner drove my father's car up to his farm, left it in the driveway and then drove the other fellow's care back to the store before he knew it was missing. (Laughter.) There are so many people in Carthage who have bent over backwards to help my parents, especially over the last few years. My family is so grateful for the quality of kindness in Smith County, and we thank you. And during the months and weeks before my father's death, we've been blessed with the devotion of a wonderful collection of around-the-clock caregivers and doctors and nurses. Reverend Billy Graham wrote recently, ``We may not always be aware of the presence of angles. We cannot always predict how they will appear. But angels have been said to be our neighbors.'' All I know is that my family is mighty grateful to the people who have shown so much love to my father. And we found out that a lot of our neighbors in Smith County and the surrounding counties really are angels. A lot of them are here today, and on behalf of my family I want to say thank you. He died bravely and well. As it was written of the patriarch, Abraham, ``he breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years, and he was gathered to his people. And we know that those who walk uprightly enter into peace, they find rest as they lie in death.'' As many here know, it's hard to watch the sharpness of a parent's face, hard to watch, in the words of the poet, ``how body from spirit does slowly unwind until we are pure spirit at the end.'' We're a close family. But the time we had together over the last few weeks to say good-bye truly brought us closer still. We're grateful to all those who have reached out to us, many of whom understand the need because they, themselves, have suffered loss. As is our custom here, neighbors brought food and we tried to concentrate on making ready for today. So here's what I decided I would like to say today--to that young boy with the fiddle in Possum Hollow, contemplating his future: I'm proud of the choices you made. I'm proud of the road you traveled. I'm proud of your courage, your righteousness, and your truth. I feel, in the words of the poet, because my father ``lived his soul, love is the whole and more than all.'' I'll miss your humor, the sound of your laughter, your wonderful stories and your sound advice, and all those times you were so happy that you brought the house down. Dad, your whole life has been an inspiration. I'd take the 91 years--your life brought the house down.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the only Member in the history of the Congress who has lived under and fought against both fascism and communism. Every day I enter this hall I do so with a feeling of humility and pride, as one who has suffered the pain of living in a police state and now enjoys the exhilaration of living in a free society. The question I want to raise today is, what distinguishes this Congress from the legislatures of despotic countries? It certainly is not the taking of votes. Because there are always votes, plenty of them, in totalitarian parliaments. Nor is it the eloquence or the erudition or the IQ level of Members. Mr. Speaker, what distinguishes this House from the fake parliaments of police states is procedural fairness. What we ask is the opportunity to vote on censuring the President in addition to the opportunity to vote on impeachment. Democracy not only means the rule of the majority, it also mandates respect for the minority. If our Republican colleagues allow a vote on censure and even if that vote fails, they will give respect and legitimacy to these proceedings. Should a censure vote prevail, they will allow the voice of the true majority to triumph. Some of my very best friends sit on the other side of the aisle and I would defend their right to vote their conscience with my life if necessary. I find it unbelievable that they want to limit my right to vote my conscience. The censure vote we are seeking is supported by our former Republican colleague, the former Republican President of the United States of America, Gerald Ford, who is renowned for his fairness. The censure vote we seek is supported by the former Republican leader of the United States Senate and the Republican candidate for President in 1996, Senator Bob Dole. The censure vote we seek is supported by the large majority of our fellow citizens. Mr. Speaker, compromise is the currency of a free society. Self- righteous certitude is the antithesis of democracy. I respect all of my colleagues who will ultimately vote for impeachment, but I ask that they respect the right of those of us who wish to express our disapproval but who deeply believe that the impeachment and the removal of our President would be a travesty to the principle of proportionality, it would be unfair to him and to his family, and it would be damaging to our national interest. When this debate is over, I hope they will allow all of us to feel that we have participated in a real vote of a real legislature. I ask that we have the opportunity to vote on a motion to censure the President. If the impeachment vote succeeds in this House, come January, President Clinton will be on trial in the Senate. But today, my friends, it is this House that is on trial.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is not a person in this body on either side who does not clearly understand that this body has every right to censure the President, and to hide behind these phony technicalities demeans this House. My colleagues know as well as I do that a censure vote could be taken, would be legal, would be constitutional and would carry.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend yielding. The technicalities have been debated ad nauseum and ad infinitum.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago, our First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, delivered the first of the Eleanor Roosevelt Lectures sponsored by the Eleanor Roosevelt Center at Val-Kill at Hyde Park, New York. The address was given here in Washington, D.C., at Georgetown University, and I had the honor of being present on that occasion. It was particularly appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that our current outstanding First Lady should pay tribute to her predecessor, Eleanor Roosevelt, whose active involvement in civil rights, human rights and other worthy causes set the standard for first ladies who followed her. Mr. Speaker, it was particularly appropriate that Mrs. Clinton devoted much of her lecture to the issue of human rights. The speech was given on December 4--less than a week before the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Eleanor Roosevelt was the chair of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which drafted the Universal Declaration over half a decade ago. Most appropriately in her address, Hillary Clinton has put the struggle for human rights into a contemporary context. She reviewed her own extensive experience in dealing with child labor, religious persecution, the sexual exploitation of women and children, hunger and malnutrition, the abuse and murder of street children, and other similar serious issues. I commend our First Lady for her commitment to fight for human rights. Mr. Speaker, I submit her lecture at Georgetown University to be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to give it the thoughtful and careful attention that it deserves. Remarks by Hillary Rodham Clinton, Georgetown University, Eleanor Roosevelt Lectures, Washington, DC--December 4, 1998 (As Delivered) I am delighted to be here at this wonderful university. I want to thank my friend and your president, Father O'Donovan, for his introduction, for his leadership, for his many contributions. Not only here to this university but to the much broader American community as well. I am delighted to be here with others, from whom you will hear as the program goes on. Dr. Glen Johnson from Val-Kill and Dr. Dorothy Brown and Dr. Sue Martin, Ambassador Betty King and Dr. McGrab and Dr. Milnik . . . . and your own Dr. Jo Ann Moran Cruz and Tracy Roosevelt. This is a very important first lecture and a very significant series that was undertaken by the Eleanor Roosevelt Center at Val-Kill at Hyde Park in New York. I am very honored to be taking part in this extraordinary lecture series and I'm very pleased to be a part of something that preserves the legacy of Eleanor Roosevelt. That gives new generations of all of us, men and women, here in America and around the world, a real opportunity to know more about this extraordinary woman. What I wish to discuss this afternoon is how Eleanor Roosevelt's legacy as a person, as a leader, as someone who in her own way makes human rights part of our everyday experience and vocabulary, how she can help today to continue to guide us in protecting the human rights of all people and, in particular, of children. I believe that this is an important piece of unfinished business in our century and one of the challenges of the new millennium. It is of course more than fitting to have this first conversation about human rights at this great university and community--one which has always responded to the call of service, God, and humanity. It is the home, as Father O'Donovan just reminded us, of a student community that sends more than a thousand young people a year into Washington, DC schools and neighborhoods bringing math, and reading, and role modeling, and friendship, and a hug to some of our nation's most vulnerable children. It is the home of a brilliant faculty that has devoted their lives to their students, to scholarship, to service. Whether it's in the classroom or in some other activity, Georgetown continues to make an important mark on what we are as a people, how we define ourselves now and in the future. It is certainly the home of many distinguished alumni who have used the Jesuit ethos of service in this world, from Mark Gearan who sends Peace Corps volunteers to every corner of the Earth, to George Mitchell who helped bring peace to Northern Ireland, from my husband, to my Chief of Staff Melanne Verveer who is with me here today. Now, as you might imagine, being somewhat in awe of this great university which has produced so many important people and that has made so many important contributions to our country, I thought I needed to discuss this speech with Eleanor Roosevelt. (laughter and applause) When I first told people some years ago that I sometimes hold imaginary conversations with Mrs. Roosevelt, there were some-- particularly, I must say, in the journalistic community-- who thought they finally had irrefutable evidence that I'd gone off the deep end. (laughter) Well, I only can commend to you this imaginary conversation technique--whether it is with a parent, a grandparent or a beloved former teacher or a famous person--it does help to get your ideas straight because you say, ``What would my grandmother say about this?'' Or, ``what would Mrs. Jones, who desperately tried to prevent me from dangling participles, have to say about this?'' So talking to Mrs. Roosevelt, even in my imagination, has proven to be a very great source of strength and inspiration. You can imagine some of the situations I find myself in when I say, ``Oh my good gracious, what would Mrs. Roosevelt say?'' (laughter) As anyone can tell you, particularly my daughter, I am technologically challenged. But, I decided in preparation for this speech to try a more modern, more acceptable way of communicating. So, first I tried to email her at erooselvelt@heaven.com, but I think the server was down. I tried calling on her cell phone, but the circuits were busy. Then I tried paging her but was told she had traveled to another part of Heaven to work with a group of angels on strike, and that I would need a universal skypage to get through to her. So there I was last night, I got home from New York late, worried about what I was going to say, staring at some pages of print when I realized that her life has already given us the guidance we need on today's topic so many times over. Not just some inspirational words that we might hear in our minds, in our imaginary conversations such as, ``The thing to remember is to do the thing you think you cannot do.'' But also in her example, in the path that she created, in the life that she lived. Wherever I go as First Lady, I am always reminded of one thing: that usually, Eleanor Roosevelt has been there before. I've been to farms in Iowa and factories in Michigan, welfare offices in New York, where Mrs. Roosevelt paid a visit more than half a century ago. When I went to Pakistan and India we discovered that Eleanor Roosevelt had been there in 1952, and had written a book about her experiences. So I was particularly honored when I received the Eleanor Roosevelt Center Gold Medal at Val-Kill. A beautiful wooded retreat where she went to entertain friends and family to think and to write. As I walked through her home I tried to imagine again how she worked tirelessly there for what she believed in. And I was told a story that I've never forgotten. It was a day in the 1950s and she had a speech to give in New York. She was so sick that her throat was literally bleeding. Everyone wanted her to cancel, but she refused. She drove from Hyde Park to 125th Street in Harlem. And when she got out of the car, a young girl with her face beaming handed her a bouquet of flowers. Eleanor Roosevelt turned to the person with her and said, ``You see, I had to come. She was expecting me.'' Well, they were always expecting her and she always came. She came to give support and to give a voice to those without either. To the migrant workers who watched her march through fields that had been newly plowed and were thick with muck, they would just matter-of-factly greet her by saying, ``Oh Mrs. Roosevelt, you've come to see us.'' As if it were the most natural thing in the world. To the Japanese-Americans during World War II and to African Americans every day during her long life, she would help support people who faced discrimination and challenges. Another of my favorite stories is of an African American child, a first grader, whose mother worked in a laundry mat. His father was a mechanic who couldn't get good work. They lived in a tin shack without any foundation so every time it rained their house slid down the hill. This child wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt telling her that his house was literally falling down a hill. So she went to Kentucky, set up a meeting with the heads of the realty association and the banks, which led not only that child getting his house on much firmer footing, but also eventually to integrated housing in Lexington, Kentucky. The next year in the mail, he sent his second grade picture to Mrs. Roosevelt and she carried it with her to remind her of the boy she had never personally met. On the back, he had written his name with such care, erasing it many times so that it was just right, that it left an imprint on the front of the photo. He also included a letter, ``Dear Mrs. Roosevelt,'' it said ``Thank you for my house. I know you did it.'' Without fanfare, she went anywhere and everywhere she thought her presence would make a difference. She wanted to see with her own eyes the everyday violations that rob individuals of their dignity and all of us of our humanity. And then she rolled up her sleeves and tried to do something about what she saw. And that is the path she is asking us to walk today; to open our eyes and hearts, to use our minds and hands, and fulfill the promises of her greatest achievements of all, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It happened exactly 50 winters ago. As the Chair of the commission drafting the Universal Declaration of Human rights, Eleanor Roosevelt worked tirelessly from 1946 to 1948. Imagine how she must have felt on December 10, at 3:00 a.m. when the nations of the world agreed to create this new common standard for human dignity. We know how everyone else felt. The delegates stood and gave her a standing ovation. Let me read a passage from that document: ``The advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief, freedom from fear and want have been proclaimed as the highest aspirations of the common people.'' The declaration, as we know, did not take place in a vacuum. As Father O'Donovan has already reminded us, it was a worldwide response to evil, and I use that word deliberately. Those who study Hitler's rise to power and the Holocaust know that the Nazis were able to pursue their crimes precisely because they were successful at constricting the circle of those that were defined as fully humans. They proceeded step by step, through laws and propaganda--Jews, the mentally ill, the infirm, gypsies, homosexuals--all of whom they identified as unworthy of life, as not human, as alien, other. Throughout history, and even today, we have seen in many places and in many times this cold dark region of the human soul, this schizophrenia of the soul that permits one group to dehumanize another. And it was that all-too-human characteristic that the Declaration and Eleanor Roosevelt wanted to help us resist. In the half century since the declaration, this document has created an ideal that nations and individuals have reached towards, knowing that they will never quite achieve it, but knowing that we must never stop trying. Many countries have used the Declaration for their own constitutions. Courts of law look to it. It has laid the groundwork for the world's war crimes tribunals. At the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, it was the strength and challenge of this Declaration that enabled us to say for the world to hear that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights. It was the power of the Declaration that led in 1989 to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I am very proud that my husband signed that. And now I hope with all my heart that the United States will join with the Vatican and all the other nations of the world except Somalia and ratify the Convention once and for all. (applause) And this is why. In spite of our progress on human rights over the last half century, it is unconscionable that we still have not seen the circle of human dignity expanded to include all the children of our world. There are still too many excluded from the Declaration, too many whose suffering we fail to see, to hear, to feel, or to stop. Now, any look back in the course of human history shows that every nation, every society, has its blind spots. Spots that somehow prevent us from understanding how the full circle of rights should include all of our fellow human beings. In our country it has taken us most of our 222 years--most of them bloody, few of them easy--to extend the benefits of citizenship to African Americans, to those without property, and to women. Eleanor Roosevelt was 35 years old before she was given the right to vote. And we also know--especially in this new global economy-- that no nation can move ahead when its children are left behind. Eleanor Roosevelt understood that. She knew that whether we treated children with respect would not only determine the quality of our lives, but also who we were as a nation and what kind of life it would be for the next generation. You could see it in the way she talked to children. I've seen so many pictures of her bending down from her tall frame and leaning her entire body over to hear a child, looking right into the eyes of that child, trying to understand that child's dream, trying to convey that she believed in that little boy or girl, and she always tried to give those children a voice. The Declaration makes that clear. It reads, ``All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.'' All human beings--it did not say all men, or all members of certain races, regions or religions. It did not say all adults. It also did not make choices between children because, in fact, it says specifically, ``All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.'' Because human rights are not given to us by a parent or the government. They do not miraculously appear when we turn 18. No piece of paper can give them or take them away. We know that children should be treated with extra care--not less. And every child should be viewed as endowed with all rights and dignity accorded to all human beings. Now of course that's not always been the view of children. For millennia we viewed children as the property of their families, principally of their fathers. They were mostly used for work--work outside and inside the house. Parents were given the right in every culture to abandon, ignore or sell their children. But over the centuries, we grew to understand that children were not just little adults, that they need the care, discipline and the love of a family. And we began to understand too--as industrialization spread across the world--that in order for children to be successful in the world that is being created, they needed education, they needed protection, they needed to grow slowly but surely into adulthood. We have to only go back to the 19th century to see how different times were. In Dickens' Hard Times, poor children grow up in a town where the black soot from the factory virtually extinguishes the sun and the school is taught by a teacher appropriately named Choke M. Child. So in this century, we have begun to appreciate more that children are people, are individuals, and not property. Now what does that mean to us? Well, clearly in our country, it has meant passing laws, and enforcing them to prevent children from being abused in labor; being abused by those who are closest to them--their family; being given certain protections, whether they are caught up in the court system or the welfare system; being given the right of--which sounds like an oxymoron--compulsory education; being viewed in other words as people themselves who we must nurture into full citizenship. If you've ever worked with children, you can see in their eyes how so often we fail at that very fundamental task of respecting them. I've worked with abused and neglected children for more than 25 years. I've looked into the eyes of many poor children, many abandoned children, and I'm always amazed that there are some in our world who continue to dismiss the suffering of children, who believe that somehow children are so resilient that they will always bounce back, and it is not all of our responsibility to care for all of our children, and that we interfere with the rights of parents when we do something as simple as try to prevent children from being physically abused. So we've changed attitudes, and we have seen great progress doing so here in our own country and around the world. There are others who say that human rights are a Western invention and that they come from a Judeo-Christian base and that they don't have universal application. But we also know differently. We can go back and trace the roots of the beliefs that were set forth in the Declaration. They were not invented 50 years ago. They are not the work of a single culture, whether it is Confucius who articulated them in ancient china, or Sophocles who wrote 2500 years ago about such rights and had antigone declare there were ethical laws higher than the laws of kings. But whether it is the Golden Rule--which appears in every possible religion in one form or another--we know that at root we understand--whether we admit it or not--that we as human beings are vowed to each other in a mutual realm of respect, that we should nurture for our own sake, as well as for others. Now what are these rights? Well, for children, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child declares that every child is born with the right to be protected from abuse and abduction, violence and work that threatens his or her development. It says that every child has the right to worship freely and express opinions and aspirations, that every child has the right to health, to education, to life. These are the promises that Eleanor Roosevelt and every other champion of human rights held out for all people, but it has been up to us adults to make these promises real in the lives of children. In many African villages, I'm told that neighbors greet each other not by saying hello, but by asking, ``How are the children?'' Well the answer is that today, 50 years after the Declaration, children are doing better around the world. They are more likely to live to see their 5th birthday and even their 75th. In health, nutrition, education, water supply and sanitation, three out of five countries are pretty much on track to reach the child survival goals set by the 1990 World Summit on Children. Over the last two decades, infant immunization rates rose from 5 percent to 80 percent, saving more than 3 million lives a year. Around the world, I have personally seen governments and non-governmental organizations come together to put the lives of children first. Just a few months ago, Yemen adopted a national strategy for girls' education, including eliminating school fees for girls. Last year in the United States, we extended health insurance to millions of children, and enacted the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which says that our first priority in the child welfare system is the health and well-being of children. There are many examples I could give you of the progress we have made--certainly over 50 years, but even over 10 and the last 5 years. But still we have to ask, ``How are the children?'' And the honest answer is, which children? Where do they live? Who are their parents? How affluent are they? What kind of societies are they part of? Because, despite the advances, in many places around the world children are not doing very well at all. There are old foes like malnutrition and malaria and new foes like trafficking and child prostitutes and laborers. There is still a long distance for us to travel. Over the last few weeks I randomly had pulled headlines from around the world. From Hong Kong, ``Child Prostitutes Make Tearful Plea;'' in Bangladesh, ``The Plight of Street Children;'' in Nairobi, ``Poverty Blamed for Child Labor.'' Eleanor Roosevelt certainly would be the first to point out that a child's rights go far beyond simply responding to the images that we see on TV, or that reach us through the Internet or the newspaper. We have to ask ourselves, each of us, ``What is it I can do? What is it I can ask others to do? How can I move my government, my church, my friends forward to do more for children?'' I think there are some very specific ways we can bear witness and things we can do to support those children whose lives are not much better today than they were 50 years ago, or who face new challenges--like being kidnaped, or being forced into combat--that we didn't even dream of 50 years ago. We have to understand that we can't just be satisfied by giving children help and nutrition for emergencies. We have to look at root causes. We have to support work by our own government, by our development agencies like USAID, by international organizations such as UNICEF. And it is particularly important that we do not forget the faces of the children here in our country, at this time of prosperity and peace. Americans have so many blessings, but there are even those among us who are being left out. If we talk about human rights and freedoms we have to ask ourselves, ``What does that mean to the 7 million children who still die every year of malnutrition?'' What does it mean to the 585,000 women who still die of childbirth complications or the girls who are fed last and fed least because they are not valued as much as their brothers? What meaning can it have for a child who does not have access to school or for one who is shut out at school? We know that education, especially for girls, is the single best investment any country can make. It is what will give children a better future, keep them out of the labor market before they're ready, and keep them off the streets. And yet, 140 million primary school age children are not in school--60 percent of that 140 million are girls. And I have seen first- hand the obstacles, the cultural and economic obstacles that stand in the way of sending girls to school. In a small village outside of Lahore, Pakistan I visited with mothers who had sent their daughters to local primary school, and now they had daughters who had graduated who wanted to go on with their education, but there was no secondary school. I've met with families in Bangladesh, who in return for food and money permitted their daughters to go to school. It was a bribe, but it was a worthy bribe. I've also visited places where child labor is the norm not the exception and, as Eleanor Roosevelt said when she championed the Child Labor Amendment in our own country so many years ago, ``No civilization should be based on the labor of children.'' But that is happening every day--even in this country because children are being forced into labor, sold into labor, and we are not doing enough about it. The types of labor children are subjected to in this new global economy have perhaps changed, but not the impact on the child. It is not a problem of the past. It should not be excused by saying that parents need money. And we should not close our eyes to the work of children that goes into beautiful carpets or comfortable running shoes because the fact remains that one quarter of the children in the developing world, 120 million, work full time. It's a very difficult problem because many of them are the sole support of their families often with widowed or abandoned mothers, with younger siblings, or they're helping to supplement the hard earned income of a father. The new face of child labor also includes things that I don't think Eleanor Roosevelt even thought to worry about. Girls are being sold as part of an international trade in human beings from South Asia, to the Middle East, to Central America. It is estimated that there are 250,000 children in Haiti alone who are virtually enslaved as domestic servants. I heard about that on my recent trip to Haiti. How they are often given away, sold, separated from their families, sexually and physically abused, malnourished, and literally sometimes worked to death. There are girls that I've met in Northern Thailand, when I visited their village I could tell by looking at their parents' homes which ones had sold their daughters into prostitution. The homes were bigger, nicer, they sometimes even had an antenna or satellite on top. But the next day I visited with some of the daughters that had been sold into the brothels in Bangkok and other cities who, after they became infected with HIV, were thrown out into the streets and found their way home. They were rejected by their families, and thanks to the good services of relief and religious organizations they were taken in. And I met those girls--some of them as young as 12--dying from AIDS. Eleanor Roosevelt worked hard to rescue European refugee children during World War II. But I don't know if she, or anyone, could have seen the horrific ways in which children are now being brutalized by war. Until relatively recently in human history, war was being fought out between soldiers. Some conscripts, some volunteers, but by in large adult men-- counting teenagers in their mid to late teens in some societies who were part of whatever the war effort was. In the last twenty or so years, that has increasingly not been the case. Who will speak today for the two million children that have been in conflicts in the last two decades, with six million seriously injured or permanently disabled, the one million left without parents or the twelve million left without homes? The primary victims of modern warfare are women, and children, and civilians--people who are picked on as victims, who are kidnaped by perpetrators, who are forced into being refugees. Who will speak for those children who are being used as instruments of war? From the young girls systematically raped in Bosnia, to the quarter of a million child soldiers around the world. Who will speak for the three children I recently met in Uganda--Janet, Issac and Betty? Like many children in Northern Uganda, they have literally been stolen from their homes. The boys are used in battle as human shields. The girls are sent into slave labor, usually raped, and then given away as wives to rebel commanders. The children are often forced to kill other children who don't obey or try to escape. The rebels call themselves soldiers but they are cowards, for only cowards would hide behind children in battle. I met the head of a boarding school, a nun, Sister Rachele. Her 139 female students had been the subject of a raid by the rebels who had crossed the Sudanese border, had taken the school, tied the girls up, beaten them, and then taken them all away into the dead of night. But this tiny little woman of God was determined to get them back. She went after them, she was armed usually only with her faith, but she was able to pull together some funds to ransom some of the children out. She served as a safe haven for those who could find their way back. Many have, but I was sad to talk with the mother of one of those students who has not been rescued. Her mother doesn't know if she's alive or dead. She only knows that she was taken as part of a war that she has no say in whatsoever. We also know that we cannot fulfill the journey that the Declaration started us on when 100 mullion street children now live in the developing world alone. They are out of school, without homes or families. They're left to take care of themselves, they roam the streets in tattered clothing, they sell gum, and they beg and they dig through the trash for food. I've seen them in Bulgaria. Roma children--one of the most discriminated against groups in Europe--you might call them gypsies. Roma children, sometimes by their own parents, are put out on the street to beg. Or if there are too many children in the family some are just left there. Or if they want to go to school instead of turning tricks they are left there. I also saw them in Brazil where three street children a day are killed, usually by police doing the bidding of merchants who are tired of having these children camped in front of their stores. In both Bulgaria and Brazil, I saw how caring people can make a difference. I visited a center run by a Bulgarian--American who has taken in children off the streets who are now going to school and learning, and thinking about a better future. But it's a small number of those that need to be helped. I visited a unique program in Brazil in Salvador de Bahia. A circus school where children were taken in and taught skills to entertain people who would come and see them perform. They would then have money so they could be housed, and given food, and educated--children who once had no future, thinking they wouldn't have one. It's not only in warm places like Brazil--I visited a center for street children in Mongolia where the children, because of the rapid changes in social life, because of problems adjusting to the new global economy, are either being pushed out or running away from homes that are in a great deal of stress and turmoil. When we think bout what is happening with these tens of millions of children around the world, we certainly cannot forget that there are still children here in Washington, DC and throughout America that need their rights protected as well. We should not, for example, condemn violence against children in Kosovo and turn away from it on the streets of Washington. We cannot mourn the children of Mongolia and forget about homeless children here, or raise our voices about children out of school in Guatemala and close our mouths when young people here drop out. We have to do better by our own children as well. We've been making progress here and around the world. I've been pleased that this administration, under the President, has put the protection of children on the front burner. For example, this year, we are increasing by tenfold our U.S. commitment to take children out of abusive workrooms and put them in classrooms all over the world. Since September, the Voice of America has been broadcasting monthly public service announcements asking parents if they've talked about their children's health today, focusing on child survival issues, talking hard talk in some places, like not feeding your girl children, or being exposed to HIV and AIDS. We join with Ukraine to combat trafficking of girls in and out of that country. And from Guatemala to Nepal, I've seen how small investments in educational scholarships for girls, or safe birthing kits, or Vitamin A, can lift up and transform lives. So there is much that we can point to that is heading in the right direction, but there is much more we have to do. Another story from Eleanor Roosevelt. She once talked about receiving a letter from an African American boy who had taken a drink out of what was then considered the wrong water fountain, and he was beaten up for it. He sent her the cup he had used to get the water and explained what happened. She not only kept that cup, she carried it around with her as a reminder of all the work yet to be done. I wish we each had some little talisman that we could carry around with us, that would remind us everyday of the work still to be done. I hope we remember the children who are victims and weapons of war when Congress revisits our United Nations dues. It should be unacceptable to all Americans of any political persuasion that the richest and most powerful country in the world is the number one debtor to the United Nations. (applause) I hope we remember the children toiling in glass and shoe factories as we work to fulfill the promises and one day ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I hope we continue to do all that we can to help promote democracy around the world to make sure that all parents have a voice that will be heard from the ballot box, and even the soap box, so they can speak out on behalf of the needs of their children. We know that we have to do more than pass, and even implement new laws. We have to teach people that they do have rights, and how to exercise them. I was particularly pleased by an American-funded project I saw recently in Senegal. Where out in the villages they're learning about democracy, they're acting out skits. Someone stands up and expresses an opinion and then another stands up and they discuss it and take a vote on it. The rudiments of democracy. And in this skit are both men and women participating. As a result of that democracy skit one small village, after talking about issues that effected them-- health, the education of their children--to put an end to female circumcision. That was a very brave decision. They convinced people in the village that it should be done, and they put it to a vote and they voted for it. And than, two men in their village went from their village to other villages and started talking to the people in the other villages and explaining that they had read the Koran and there was nothing in it that talked about this. It was not good for their daughters, it sometimes led to them hemorrhaging and bleeding to death, and sometimes caused grave complications in childbirth. Slowly, village after village began to recognize that it was a fundamental right of a young girl to grow up whole, to have her health protected. And then, the next thing I knew I got a letter saying these villages had banded together and presented a petition to the President and that a law would be passed. Now that law will not end this cultural custom, but it will begin to change attitudes about it. More and more girls and women will say, ``No, this is not necessary.'' There are certain rights to health that we need to protect. First, think of what we could accomplish if we valued and respected every child, with particular emphasis on girl children, because they are still the most at risk in so many societies around the globe. If we are to put children's rights on the same level as adult's rights, then we have to think about what it is that we want for our own children. Those of us in this beautiful Gaston Hall, who try to keep our children healthy, who try to give them good educations that lead to a fine university education like this one here at Georgetown. We try to protect them from abuse and neglect and abandonment and desertion. We try not to put them to work in full time jobs before they are ready. So we have to think about what we want for ourselves, and in many countries where some of the worst violations of children's rights occur, those who are in power protect their own children and then look at others children as being beyond the circle of human dignity. So we have to complete that circle, and that falls to every generation. It fell to our parents who fought off depression and oppression. It fell to the generation that fought for civil rights and for human rights. And it falls to each of us, particularly the students who are here today. I like very much the article that Tracy Roosevelt recently wrote. She talked about the legacy that her great grandmother left all of us and that any young person could follow by standing up for the rights of others by standing against stereotyping of any person or group of people. Now we might not have Eleanor Roosevelt's stature--either in height or in life--but each of us can contribute to a child's future. We can make sure that we are part of a society that values health care for everyone, a good education for everyone, the strength of families to give them the tools they need to raise their own children with future possibilities, to make sure we do everything we can to live free from abuse and violence and war, and to make it possible for every person and every child to speak freely and live up to their own God-given potential. As we look forward to the next fifty years, we will face many challenges and opportunities. It was almost 50 years ago that Eleanor Roosevelt spoke about this. She spoke about democracy and human rights to a group of students, both high school and college students, in New York. As we listen to her those words still ring true today. She said, ``Imagine it's you people gathered here in this room who are going to do a great deal of the thinking and the actual doing because a good many of us are not going to see the end of this period. You are going to live in a dangerous world for quite a while I guess, but it's going to be an interesting and adventurous one. I wish you courage to face yourselves and when you know what you really want to fight for, not in a war, but to fight for in order to gain a peace, then I wish for you imagination and understanding. God bless you. May you win.'' Those words are just as true for this generation of students as they were fifty years ago for the ones that Eleanor Roosevelt spoke to. I go back to that first story, despite how sick she was, she showed up and took that bouquet of flowers from that young girl. ``You see'' she said, ``I had to come, she was expecting me.'' Think about all of the children who are expecting us. Think about, as we go forward into Advent and celebrate this Christmas season, about a particular child who no one was expecting but grew up to give us a chance to think anew, to live again in way that connect us more deeply and profoundly to one another. Eleanor Roosevelt can serve as an inspiration, and a reminder that although as President Kennedy said, ``God's work on this Earth is our own,'' we know that we can never complete it. But we know that we can live richer lives if we try. To the children of America and the world, you see, we have to come, because they are expecting us to make good on the promises that were made to them fifty years ago. Thank you all very much. (applause)

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last night this House approved the Omnibus Appropriations Act which included funding for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Earlier this month, the IMF and the World Bank held their annual meetings here in Washington, D.C., against a backdrop of international financial turmoil and serious concern about the economies of a number of key countries in the world and about the ability of the international financial system to deal with the crisis. The IMF has not been successful in resolving the economic problems in East Asia and in Russia thus far. Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, George Soros, the international financial genius, appeared before the House Banking Committee to issue a somber warning to the Congress of the United States--Unless Congress is willing to support the IMF and take supportive action in dealing with the faltering international financial system, the disintegration of the global capitalist system will have dire consequences for the United States economy because we are at the center of that system. We cannot by and do nothing while other countries face economic crisis. The instability and enormous losses that have been suffered on Wall Street in the past few weeks are just the latest indications of the scope and gravity of this crisis. While this initial impact upon our own country has been limited so far to our financial markets, the consequences of further deterioration would be felt throughout our economy with consequences that would be felt by all Americans. Mr. Speaker, George Soros told the Banking Committee that the Congress has an extraordinary responsibility and obligation to assure the success and the continued viability of the IMF and the international financial system. Mr. Soros also told the Committee that ``I am convinced that the attitude of the Congress was already an important element in the failure to deal with Russia'' with all of the serious consequences that could bring. Mr. Speaker, I regret that there was destructive dithering and dallying on the part of the leadership of the Congress earlier this year, but I welcome the fact that the essential funding for the IMF was included in the Omnibus Appropriations legislation that we adopted last night. This important reversal in policy is in no small part due to the thoughtful and weighty arguments that George Soros advanced in testimony he presented at the Banking Committee hearing a few weeks ago. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Soros testimony before the House Banking Committee be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues in the House to give it the thoughtful consideration that it clearly deserves. The matters that he discussed, which are of great significance for all of us in this body, have not been resolved. Further important decisions await the Congress, and George Soros' thoughts are important for all of us as we consider our nation's economic future. Testimony of George Soros--Committee on Banking and Financial Services, September 15, 1998 This hearing is very timely because the global capitalist system which has been responsible for the remarkable prosperity of this country in the last decade is coming apart at the seams. The current decline in the US stock market is only a symptom, and a belated symptom at that, of the more profound problems that are afflicting the world economy. Some Asian stock markets have suffered worse declines than the Wall Street crash of 1929 and in addition their currencies have also fallen to a fraction of what their value was when they were tied to the US dollar. The financial collapse in Asia was followed by an economic collapse. In Indonesia, for instance, most of the gains in living standards that accumulated during 30 years of Suharto's regime have disappeared. Modern buildings, factories and infrastructure remain, but so does a population that has been uprooted from its rural origins. The Japanese banking system is in deep trouble. The world's second largest economy just reported an annualized 3.3% decline in economic activity for the second quarter. Currently Russia has undergone a total financial meltdown. It is a scary spectacle and it will have incalculable human and political consequences. The contagion has now also spread to Latin America. It would be regrettable if we remained complacent just because most of the trouble is occurring beyond our borders. We are all part of the global capitalist system which is characterized not only by free trade but more specifically by the free movement of capital. The system is very favorable to financial capital which is free to pick and choose where to go and it has led to the rapid growth of global financial markets. It can be envisaged as a gigantic circulatory system, sucking up capital into the financial markets and institutions at the center and then pumping it out to the periphery either directly in the form of credits and portfolio investments, or indirectly through multinational corporations. Until the Thai crisis in July 1997 the center was both sucking in and pumping out money vigorously, financial markets were growing in size and importance and countries at the periphery could obtain an ample supply of capital from the center by opening up their capital markets. There was a global boom in which the emerging markets fared especially well. At one point in 1994 more than half the total inflow into US mutual funds went into emerging market funds. The Asian crisis reversed the direction of the flow. Capital started fleeing the periphery. At first, the reversal benefitted the financial markets at the center. The U.S. economy was just on the verge of overheating and the Federal Reserve was contemplating raising the discount rate. The Asian crisis rendered such a move inadvisable and the stock market took heart. The economy enjoyed the best of all possible worlds with cheap imports keeping domestic inflationary pressures in check and the stock market made new highs. The buoyancy at the center raised hopes that the periphery may also recover and between February and April of this year most Asian markets recovered roughly half their previous losses measured in local currencies. That was a classic bear market rally. There comes a point when distress at the periphery cannot be good for the center. I believe that we have reached that point with the meltdown in Russia. I am not making any predictions about the stock market, but I am ready to assert that we have reached that point. I have three main reasons for saying so. One is that the Russian meltdown has revealed certain flaws in the international banking system which had been previously disregarded. In addition to their exposure on their own balance sheets, banks engage in swaps, forward transactions and derivative trades among each other and with their clients. These transactions do not show up in the balance sheets of the banks. They are constantly marked to market, that is to say, they are constantly revalued and any difference between cost and market made up by cash transfers. This is supposed to eliminate the risk of any default. Swap, forward and derivative markets are very large and the margins razor thin; that is to say, the value of the underlying amounts is a manifold multiple of the capital employed in the business. The transactions form a daisy chain with many intermediaries and each intermediary has an obligation to his counterparties without knowing who else is involved. The exposure to individual counterparties is limited by setting credit lines. The sophisticated system received a bad jolt when the Russian banking system collapsed. Russian banks defaulted on their obligations, but the Western banks remained on the hook to their own clients. No way was found to offset the obligations of one bank against those of another. Many hedge funds and other speculative accounts sustained large enough losses that they had to be liquidated. Normal spreads were disrupted and professionals who arbitrage between various derivatives, i.e.: trade one derivative against another, also sustained large losses. A similar situation arose shortly thereafter when Malaysia deliberately shut down its financial markets to foreigners but the Singapore Monetary Authority in cooperation with other central banks took prompt action. Outstanding contracts were netted out and the losses were shared. A potential systematic failure was avoided. These events led most market participants to reduce their exposure all round. Banks are frantically trying to limit their exposure, deleverage, and reduce risk. Bank stocks have plummeted. A global credit crunch is in the making. It is already restricting the flow of funds to the periphery, but it has also begun to affect the availability of credit in the domestic economy. The junk bond market, for instance has already shut down. This brings me to my second point. The pain at the periphery has become so intense that individual countries have begun to opt out of the global capitalist system, or simply fall by the wayside. First Indonesia, then Russia have suffered a pretty complete breakdown but what has happened in Malaysia and to a lesser extent in Hong Kong is in some ways even more ominous. The collapse in Indonesia and Russia was unintended, but Malaysia opted out deliberately. It managed to inflict considerable damage on foreign investors and speculators and it managed to obtain some temporary relief, if not for the economy, then at least for the rulers of the country. The relief comes from being able to lower interest rates and to pump up the stock market by isolating the country from the outside world and squeezing short sellers. The relief is bound to be temporary because the borders are porous and money will leave the country illegally; the effect on the economy will be disastrous but the local capitalists who are associated with the regime will be able to salvage their businesses unless the regime itself is toppled. The measures taken by Malaysia will hurt the other countries which are trying to keep their financial markets open because it will encourage the flight of capital. In this respect Malaysia has embarked on a begger-thy-neighbor policy. If this makes Malaysia look good in comparison with its neighbors, the policy may easily find imitators, making it harder for others to keep their markets open. The third major factor working for the disintegration of the global capitalist system is the evident inability of the international monetary authorities to hold it together. IMF programs do not seem to be working; in addition, the IMF has run out of money. The response of the G7 governments to the Russia crisis was woefully inadequate, and the loss of control was quite scary. Financial markets are rather peculiar in this respect: they resent any kind of government interference but they hold a belief deep down that if conditions get really rough the authorities will step in. This belief has now been shaken. These three factors are working together to reinforce the reverse flow of capital from the periphery to the center. The initial shock caused by the meltdown in Russia is liable to wear off, but the strain on the periphery is liable to continue. The flight of capital has now spread to Brazil and if Brazil goes, Argentina will be endangered. There is general panic in Latin America. Forecasts for global economic growth are being steadily scaled down and I expect they will end up in negative territory. If and when the decline spreads to our economy, we may become much less willing to accept the imports which are necessary to feed the reverse flow of capital and the breakdown in the global financial system may be accompanied by a breakdown in international free trade. This course of events can be prevented only by the intervention of the international financial authorities. The prospects are dim, because the G7 governments have just failed to intervene in Russia, but the consequences of that failure may serve as a wake-up call. There is an urgent need to rethink and reform the global capitalist system. As the Russian example has shown, the problems will become progressively more intractable the longer they are allowed to fester. The rethinking must start with the recognition that financial markets are inherently unstable. The global capitalist system is based on the belief that financial markets, left to their own devices, tend towards equilibrium. They are supposed to move like a pendulum: they may be dislocated by external forces, so-called exogenous shocks, but they will seek to return to the equilibrium position. This belief is false. Financial markets are given to excesses and if a boom/bust sequence progresses beyond a certain point it will never revert to where it came from. Instead of acting like a pendulum financial markets have recently acted more like a wrecking ball, knocking over one economy after another. There is much talk about imposing market discipline but, imposing market discipline means imposing instability, and how much instability can society take? Market discipline needs to be supplemented by another discipline: maintaining stability in financial markets ought to be the objective of public policy. This is the general principle that I should like to propose. Despite the prevailing belief in free markets this principle has already been accepted and implemented on a national scale. We have the Federal Reserve and other financial authorities whose mandate is to prevent a breakdown in our domestic financial markets and if necessary act as lenders of last resort. I am confident that they are capable of carrying out their mandate. But we are sadly lacking in the appropriate financial authorities in the international arena. We have the Bretton Woods institutions--the IMF and the World Bank--which have tried valiantly to adapt themselves to rapidly changing circumstances. Admittedly the IMF programs have not been successful in the current global financial crisis; its mission and its methods of operation need to be reconsidered. I believe additional institutions may be necessary. At the beginning of this year I proposed establishing an International Credit Insurance Corporation, but at that time it was not yet clear that the reverse flow of capital would become such a serious problem and my proposal fell flat. I believe its time has now come. We shall have to establish some kind of international supervision over the national supervisory authorities. We shall also have to reconsider the workings of the international banking system and the functioning of the swap and derivative markets. These issues are beyond the competence of Congress. There is, however, one issue which is very much within its purview. That is the request to authorize an increase in the capital of the IMF. I am aware that Congress was greatly influenced by the testimony given by George Schultz opposing such an increase. I hope my remarks will serve to contradict that testimony. George Schultz argued that it is better if markets are allowed to look after themselves than if they are looked after by regulators. There is an element of truth in his argument: regulators do make mistakes. The IMF approach clearly did not work, otherwise we would not find ourselves in the current situation. But that does not mean that financial markets can look after themselves. Everybody looking out for his or her self-interest does not lead to equilibrium but to what Alan Greenspan called irrational exuberance and afterwards panic. George Schultz inveighed against the moral hazard of bailing out irresponsible investors and speculators. Here he has a valid point. Bailouts did encourage irresponsible behavior not so much by speculators--because we know that we have to take our lumps when markets decline--but by banks and other lenders who could count on the IMF coming in when a country got into difficulties. The IMF imposed tough conditions on the country concerned but it did not impose any penalties on the lenders. This asymmetry in the treatment of lenders and borrowers is a major source of instability in the global capitalist system and it needs to be corrected. It has to be a focal point in the soul searching that the IMF must undergo, but I am glad to say that the IMF is learning fast. In its $2.2 billion program in Ukraine, it is imposing a new condition: 80% of Ukraine's treasury bills have to be ``voluntarily'' rescheduled into longer-term, lower yielding instruments before the program can go forward. This is a long way from the Mexican bailout of 1995 where the holders of Mexican treasury bills came out whole. The moral hazard now operates in the opposite direction; in not enabling the IMF to do its work when it is most needed. Congress bears an awesome responsibility for keeping the IMF alive. I am convinced that the attitude of the Congress was already an important element in the failure to deal with Russia. As you probably know I have foundations in many of the formerly communist countries. Some of these countries are badly hit by the fallout from the Russian collapse. Countries like Moldova and Romania have no one else to turn to but the IMF. The IMF is perfectly capable of assisting them. It would be tragic if it ran out of resources. Replenishing the capital of the IMF will not be sufficient to resolve the global financial crisis. A way has to be found to provide liquidity not only at the center but also at the periphery. I believe there is an urgent need for the creation of Special Drawing Rights which can be used to guarantee the rollover of the already existing debt of countries which receive the IMF's seal of approval. If there is no reward for good behavior, meltdowns and defections will multiply. But such radical ideas cannot even be considered until Congress changes its attitude towards international institutions and the IMF in particular. So far our stock market has escaped relatively unscathed and our economy has actually benefited from the global crisis but make no mistake: unless Congress is willing to support the IMF, the disintegration of the global capitalist system will hurt our financial markets and our economy as well because we are at the center of that system.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the outstanding accomplishments of my friend Dr. Daniel Vasella, the recipient of the 1998 American Jewish Congress Humanitarian Award. Dr. Vasella is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Novartis AG, which is one of the most prestigious pharmaceutical companies in the world. He has a record of service that extends well beyond the business sphere, and his leadership in the areas of medical research and the pursuance of peace is a reflection of the decency and moral fiber of a truly remarkable human being. As the recipient of the AJC's Humanitarian Award, Dr. Vasella joins some of the most outstanding men and women of the latter half of the twentieth century. The American Jewish Congress (AJC), which for the past eighty years has led the Jewish community in fighting for human rights and against all forms of discrimination, has bestowed its Humanitarian Award upon statesman and pioneers who have fought tirelessly to improve the quality of life of all the world's citizens. From Harry S. Truman to Coretta Scott King, from David Ben-Gurion to Robert F. Kennedy, the roster of recipients represents a Who's Who of the champions of humankind. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Vasella's achievements more than merit this distinguished honor. Under his inspired leadership, Novartis has emerged at the forefront of the pharmaceutical industry in the area of ``genomics,'' which involves research into ``disease genes'' as targets for new drugs. Related ventures have contributed to medical advances in a wide variety of vital areas, ranging from the treatment of Alzheimer's disease to Parkinson's disease to diabetes to cancer. In honor of Dr. Vasella's notable dedication to curing such afflictions, the AJC will use the proceeds of the 1998 Humanitarian Award Dinner (to be held on Thursday, October 22, at The Waldorf-Astoria in New York City) to further its significant work into the high genetic susceptibility of Ashkenazi Jewish women to breast and ovarian cancer, as well as for other medical projects involving the health and welfare of women. In addition to his medical successes and his numerous philanthropic activities, Dr. Vasella has contributed enormously to efforts to further the cause of peace in the Middle East. He is an active member of the International Board of Governors of the Peres Center of Peace in Israel, an organization founded last year by former Prime Minister and Nobel Laureate Shimon Peres to further economic and other areas of cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians. Furthermore, Dr. Vasella and Novartis have provided guidance and substantial financial backing to Seeds of Peace, a foundation that creates conflict resolution and peacemaking programs for youth in the Middle East and other tumultuous regions around the world. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in commending the AJC and its outstanding President, Jack Rosen, on their exceptional choice of Dr. Daniel Vasella as the recipient of the AJC's 1998 Humanitarian Award. I can think of no individual more deserving of this eminent honor.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support for House Resolution 597, and express my deep remorse and sorrow at the tragic murder of Matthew Shepard, an openly gay student at the University of Wyoming. He was brutally attacked last Thursday and left to die while tied to a wooden fence. He was found near death eighteen hours later, yet he continued to fight for his life through the weekend until his tragic death Monday morning. I join my colleagues in sending my deepest condolences to Matthew's family and friends. Mr. Speaker, I am appalled by this senseless crime, which reflects the cowardly prejudice of the thugs who committed this outrage. The House must honor Matthew's memory not only by adopting this resolution of respect that we are considering here today, but we must also pass legislation that upholds the right of all Americans to live free of bigoted violence, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. As we remember Matthew Shepard, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join in support of H.R. 3081, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This important bill would perform two very vital legal functions. It would eliminate gaps in Federal authority that have restricted the Justice Department's ability to prosecute hate crimes in a significant number of cases. While this reform would greatly enhance Federal authority to fight hate crimes, its significance pales in comparison to the second major provision of H.R. 3081, which would extend the Justice Department's authority to combat such violence to include cases involving death or serious bodily injury resulting from crimes directed at individuals because of their sexual orientation, gender, or disability. Under existing law (Section 245 of Title 19 U.S.C., in effect since 1968) only those individuals whose rights are obstructed on the basis of their race, color, religion, or national origin merit this protection. It is time to expand the Federal Government's legal authority to cover all Americans who are victims of the coarsest and most malicious expressions of bigotry, and, regrettably, Mr. Speaker, this all too often includes gay Americans. Mr. Speaker, the horrendous murder of Matthew Shepard underscores the importance of our moving quickly to adopt the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. As Elizabeth Birch, the Executive Director of the Human Rights Campaign, points out: Federal law enforcement agencies have no jurisdiction over hate crimes motivated by a person's sexual orientation. Although the Albany County, Wyoming, authorities have made arrests in the case, if they were to request forensic resources or assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the FBI would not be able to provide assistance due to lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, this loophole in our nation's hate crime laws must be closed and we can close it now. We cannot afford to wait for more tragedies to further sensitize us to the outrageousness of anti-gay violence. I would also like to note, Mr. Speaker, that the crisis of violence against homosexual men and women extends across international boundaries. Two months ago, I chaired a forum of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus which drew attention to the global prevalence of violence and abuse based on sexual orientation. Our well-informed witnesses cited in nations ranging from Uganda to Lithuania, from Turkey to Peru, where governments have failed and continue to refuse to protect their own gay citizens from unspeakable crimes and violations of their human rights. America rightly holds its elected leaders to a much higher standard, and it is time for us to justify this trust of decency and honor by passing the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It is long past time to send this vital legislation to President Clinton, who, along with Vice President Al Gore, has expressed firm support of this initiative. The memory of Matthew Shepard merits no lesser consideration.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues on the House International Relations Committee in supporting the adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 295 remembering the suffering of the people of Ukraine on the 65th anniversary of the horrendous 1932-1933 famine which resulted in the death of more than seven million people--a quarter of the population of that land. Such massive loss of life, Mr. Speaker, is always a great tragedy, but the Ukraninian famine was a particularly devastating event because it was largely an articial diaster--it was the consequence of vicious misguided policies of the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union. In 1929, the Soviet dictator, Josef Stalin, decreed the implementation of the policy of collectivization in agriculture, largely to ensure government control over the country's agriculture. This was done in order for the totalitarian government in the Kremlin to control more of the country's agricultural products to provide hard currency and capital for investment in industrialization. After forced collectivization began in 1929, the rural population of Ukraine began to suffer. The diet of the population began to worsen. By the fall of 1931 the people of this rich breadbasket were trying to survive on a diet of potatoes, beets and pumpkins. Hunger people from Ukraine were traveling in ever larger groups to neighboring areas, particularly to Russia, to find food. By the spring of 1932 people began to die of starvation. Conditions were so difficult that when peasants began the spring sowing, they kept the seeds that were necessary for that year's crop home for their children to eat. This further exacerbated the crisis. Western journalists provided reports of the seriousness of the situation in Ukraine, and the few non-Soviet visitors who were permitted to visit Ukraine confirmed the seriousness of this tragedy. Demographers who have carefully studied this era have concluded that seven to ten million people died as a consequence of this government- induced famine and the terror and repression carried out against peasants in Ukraine. When Members of Congress wrote to the Soviet government at that time, the Soviet Foreign Minister responded by calling reports of the famine `lies circulated by counterrevolutionary organizations abroad.'' Mr. Speaker, it is most appropriate that we commemorate--in sorrow and in regret--this tragic episode in the history of Ukraine. It is important that in remembering this period, we commit ourselves to take action to prevent similar atrocities in the future in Ukraine or in any other nation. This is also an occasion, Mr. Speaker, for us to rejoice that the people of Ukraine are now in the position to determine their own destiny. As a free and independent nation, the fate of the people of Ukraine now lies in their own hands. It is important for the people of Ukraine to know that we in the United States welcome their independence and that we are committed to their success as they seek to move toward a free and open and democratic society and toward a prosperous and free market economy. Mr. Speaker, I join in marking this tragic era in the history of Ukraine, and I extend my best wishes to the people of Ukraine as they work to assure that such a catastrophe never befalls their country.