Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I introduced House Concurrent Resolution 315, which expresses the sense of the Congress condemning the atrocities by Serbian police and military forces against ethnic Albanians in Kosova. The resolution also urges that blocked assets of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) which are under control of the United States and other governments be used to compensate the Albanians in Kosova for losses suffered as a result of Serbian police and military action. In introducing this resolution, I was joined by our colleagues, the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on International Relations Benjamin Gilman, my fellow Californian Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, our colleagues from New York Congressman Eliot Engel and Congresswoman Sue Kelly, and our colleague from Virginia Jim Moran. Mr. Speaker, this week, we have seen continuing media reports about the ongoing violence in the province of Kosova and about atrocities by Serbian military and police forces against ethnic Albanians. This week there were reports of a mass grave. Last week, human rights groups reported about summary executions by Serbian forces, including the killing of women and children. International human rights organizations have reported on these atrocities and are documenting the violence and the deaths. Until about a decade ago, the province of Kosova was an autonomous province of Serbia, and as such the ethnic Albanian majority were able to exercise considerable autonomy and self government in the conduct of their local affairs. Ten years ago, as Slobodan Milosevic began his rise to power in Serbia, and in that effort, he fostered the rise of Serbian ultra-nationalism for narrow partisan political purposes. One of the results of that policy was that under Milosevic, the Serbian government began a systematic process of limiting the self-government rights of the ethnic Albanian majority in the province of Kosova and restricting the human and civil rights of these people. Over the past decade, the Department of State has reported and documented this systematic and brutal repression of the ethnic Albanians of Kosova. Despite these Serbian policies, a highly respected Albanian leadership emerged which favored a peaceful, non-violent effort to win local government autonomy and respect for the civil and human rights of the majority population. Because of the increasingly repressive Serbian policies, however, Albanians who favored a violent and confrontational approach have gained strength. The increasing assertiveness of Albanians is the direct consequence of this ill-conceived aggressive nationalist Serbian repression and the failure of the Serbian government to recognize the legitimate rights of the ethnic Albanians of Kosova. After radicalizing the Albanian population by its disastrous policies, the Serbian government has sent increased numbers of ethnic Serbian police forces and Serbian military forces into Kosova in an effort to repress the effort of the ethnic Albanian majority to secure their legitimate political, civil and human rights. Thus far, Mr. Speaker, there have been several hundred confirmed deaths of ethnic Albanians, including women and children, and there are an estimated 200,000 ethnic Albanian refugees who have been driven from their homes by the fighting. These tragic numbers are increasing as the Serbian violence continues. At a recent hearing of the House Committee on International Relations we heard from officials of the Department of State about the increasing violence taking place in Kosova. It struck me at that time, Mr. Speaker, that the government assets of the government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) which have been blocked by the United States government should be used to pay for the destruction which has been cause by the actions of the Serbian police and military forces in Kosova. For this reason, I have introduced House Concurrent Resolution 315. Our resolution expresses the Congress' outrage at the wanton destruction of life and property that has resulted from Serbian military actions in Kosova. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of this resolution, and I ask that the text of this resolution be included in the Record. H. Con. Res. 315 Expressing the sense of the Congress condemning the atrocities by Serbian police and military forces against Albanians in Kosova and urging that blocked assets of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) under control of the United States and other governments be used to compensate the Albanians in Kosova for losses suffered through Serbian police and military action. Whereas the ethnic Albanian population of the province of Kosova, which makes up the overwhelming majority of the population of that area, has been denied internationally recognized human rights and political rights, including the protection of life, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press; Whereas Serbian police and military forces have engaged in brutal suppression of the Albanian people, and the number of Serbian police and military forces which have been deployed in Kosova is estimated at some 50,000 men; Whereas human rights groups have reported and documented instances of Serbian forces conducting abductions and summary executions of innocent ethnic Albanian civilians in reprisal killings that are similar to those conducted by Nazi forces during World War II and are similar to the ethnic cleansing which was carried out by ethnic Serbian troops in Bosnia; Whereas Serbian forces have indiscriminately shelled and burned villages, reducing them to rubble, in order to drive out the ethnic Albanian inhabitants, inflicting heavy material losses upon the ethnic Albanians in Kosova; Whereas hundreds of ethnic Albanians, including women and children, have been killed and over two hundred thousand ethnic Albanians have been forced to flee and have become refugees as a result of this Serbian military action; Whereas the stubborn denial of human rights and political rights to the ethnic Albanian majority in Kosova by the Government of Serbia has been the major factor in the radicalization of the political situation in the province and made the prospects of a peaceful resolution of the conflict there difficult if not impossible; and Whereas the United States and the governments of other countries have blocked the assets of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro); Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring) that the Congress (1) deeply deplores and strongly condemns the appalling loss of life and the extensive destruction of property in Kosova that is the consequence of the brutal actions of Serbian police and military forces against the ethnic Albanian population of the province; (2) believes that the government of Serbia is primarily responsible for the loss of life and destruction of property, and thus Serbia should bear the principal burden of providing compensation for the loss of life and for the costs of rebuilding areas which it forces have devastated; (3) urges the President and officials he designates to work with the Congress to draft legislation and regulations which will permit ethnic Albanians from Kosova who have suffered as a consequence of the brutal actions of Serbian police and military forces in Kosova to make claims against the assets of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) which are in the control of the United States or which have been blocked by action of the United States government, and in drafting this legislation and regulations special consideration should be given to the circumstances of the Government of the Republic of Montenegro and to persons located in and organized under the laws of the Republic of Montenegro; (4) urges the President and the Secretary of State to urge all other countries to follow this same policy to permit claims by ethnic Albanians who have suffered as a consequence of the brutal actions of Serbian police and military forces in Kosova to make claims against the assets of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) which are in the control of the respective country; and (5) requests that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the President and the Secretary of State by the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to the global persecution of individuals based on their sexual orientation. Yesterday, I chaired a briefing of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on this alarming situation. Mr. Speaker, I am especially grateful for the support and the participation of our distinguished colleagues, Congressman Benjamin Gilman, Congressman Barney Frank, Congressman William Delahunt, and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. I initiated yesterday's Caucus briefing because of alarming reports about the ongoing persecution of individuals based solely on their sexual orientation. These unacceptable violations of human rights have included arbitrary arrests, rape, torture, imprisonment, extortion and even execution. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's briefing was not a discussion of our own nation's laws relating to homosexuality, transsexuality, or bisexuality. I have my own well know views on this issue, which I have clearly stated a number of times in the last couple of weeks when the domestic legal implications of these issues have been considered by the House of Representatives. Other Members clearly have different views, and they have clearly stated those. Whatever our views on our own domestic laws, Mr. Speaker, the Caucus and all Members of Congress should be standing together in decrying the persecution of individuals and the denial of human rights for any reason, including sexual orientation. The purpose of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus briefing was to uphold the human rights that have been categorically denied all over the world to this persecuted minority. If a government denies human rights to one group, then it is possible for that government to deny rights to any other group or every group. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people in communities all around the world have been brutally punished both physically and mentally for exercising their fundamental human rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of belief. Mr. Speaker, these violations fall squarely within the scope of international human rights laws. Nowhere have basic human rights been more comprehensively defined than in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and this year we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of this historic document. Mr. Speaker, the Declaration guarantees the protection of human rights for everyone. This most assuredly does not mean so long as an individual shares our political views, our religion, the color of our skin, our sexual orientation, or anything else. The 1993 UN Human Rights Conference in Vienna stated it unequivocally by demanding: All Human Rights for All! We heard exceptional testimony yesterday. The individuals who briefed the Caucus made statements that were head and shoulders above the usual information that we receive at Caucus briefings. These outstanding witnesses were Cynthia Rothschild, Co-Chair of Amnesty International's Members for Lesbian and Gay Concerns; Scott Long, Advocacy Coordinator of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission; Regan E. Ralph, Executive Director of the Women's Rights Division, Human Rights Watch; and Serkan Altan, a brave young man who was subjected to extreme violence in Turkey because of his sexual orientation and who has now been granted asylum in the United States based on his homosexuality. Mr. Speaker, these witnesses exposed the tragic fact that basic human rights are not applied everywhere and that they most certainly are not accorded to everyone. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that their statements be placed in the Record, and I urge that my colleagues give considerable attention to their striking remarks. Cynthia Rothschild, Co-Chair, Amnesty International Members for Lesbian and Gay Concerns I am pleased to be with you today in this precedent-setting meeting. I'd like to thank Congressman Lantos and his staff for making this briefing possible, and I'd like to thank all of you who took time from your busy schedules to be here. I also want to acknowledge Serkan, who will share with us today his personal history as a survivor of human rights violations targeted because of sexuality. I am particularly glad to be able to contribute to a discussion about an urgent and often overlooked facet of international human rights law and activism--that dealing with human rights violations perpetrated because of sexual identity and conduct. Documentation from around the world confirms that lesbians, gay men and transgender people are killed, raped, assaulted, subjected to the death penalty, imprisoned, beaten, forced to undergo medical and psychiatric treatment designed to alter our sexuality, brutalized by other forms of torture and arbitrarily deprived of basic liberties because of our real ``or perceived'' sexual identity and behavior. These abuses are often sanctioned by the state through legal decree, tacit acceptance (for instance, the refusal to investigate violations or to punish perpetrators) or through promoting violence by official and unofficial state actors (ranging from police to immigration officials to prison guards). Factors such as gender, culture, race, ethnicity, age and geographic location affect the various forms of violations which take place. But no region escapes culpability--sexual behavior and identities are criminalized or vilified, albeit in different ways, all over the globe. My argument here is quite simple--these abuses occur every day, they pose very real dangers to many, many people, they're in violation of international law, they disrupt lives and sometimes take them--and they must be stopped. In this presentation, I will offer an overview of human rights violations as they pertain to sexual identity and practice and I will delineate some of the more salient and complicated issues implicit in these experiences. This information, as well as that included in Regan, Scott and Serkan's presentations, is designed to be useful to you as lawmakers, as human rights supporters and as concerned citizens. Lest I be too vague, let me first set context with a range of specific examples (and please note that because I cite specific countries in these examples it should not be interpreted to mean that these violations don't take place in many other nation-states): The following information has been compiled and documented by Amnesty International, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Watch, the International Lesbian and Gay Association, the Magnus Hirschfield Center for Human Rights and countless other local organizations. Some of the more flagrant human rights violations, gay, bisexual and transgender people face include abuses in the following three general, and sometimes overlapping, categories: (1) rights to physical and mental integrity, (2) freedom of association and expression, (3) discriminatory laws and discriminatory application of laws. 1. VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS TO PHYSICAL AND MENTAL INTEGRITY A. Execution Codified by Law: Under Islamic ``Sharia'' law, homosexuality is seen as an offense against divine will and is punishable by death. This is true in nine countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Mauritania, and Iran. In the latter country, death can be administered by stoning or by cleaving bodies in two. In Afghanistan, you may recall recent reports (carried in the New York Times) of men convicted of sodomy being placed next to standing walls and buried under rubble as the walls were toppled upon them. While intended as a form of execution, it is of interest to note that some people were not actually killed in this process--so having a wall collapse on a person becomes simply a form of torture instead of execution. B. Extrajudicial Execution (deliberate and unlawful killings by, or with the consent of, the state): In Colombia, death squads--often consisting of off-duty police--have been known to target areas where gay men congregate. As part of social cleansing efforts, victims of these death squads are gunned down in streets, or forcibly `disappeared.' C. Other Forms of Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment: In Saudi Arabia, male same-sex sexual behavior can be punished by flogging. On a different but related note, Amnesty has noted that lesbians and gay men in the custody of government officials are particularly vulnerable to torture and ill-treated. Consider the following quotation from an anonymous witness from Peru: ``In 1994, in Lima a very violent raid was carried out in the capital where about seventy-five lesbian women were beaten up and ill-treated by police. Prostitutes get a very rough time in jail. But the treatment of lesbians was even worse. Lesbians were beaten up because however degrading prostitution can be [perceived to] be, it is still regarded as normal behaviour, whereas lesbianism is seen as too threatening to the status quo.'' [Amnesty International, ``Breaking the Silence: Human Rights Violations Based on Sexual Orientation''--1997] And to cite a particularly relevant and recent example in the United States--most of you will remember the case of Abner Louima, a Haitian man who was attacked by New York City policemen while being held in a precinct. During the beating (in which a toilet plunger handle was shoved into Louima's rectum), police allegedly yelled ``faggot'' as they perpetrated the attack. Other topics which fit into this category of abuses include: Forced psychiatric treatment to alter homosexuality; Forced medical treatment; Rape and other sexual abuse; and Arbitrary detention. 2. VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND EXPRESSION In Uganda: President Yoweri Museveni speaking to the press on July 22nd of this year stated: ``When I was in America some time ago I saw a rally of 300,000 homosexuals! If you have a rally of 20 homosexuals here, I would disperse it.'' Abuse of ``public decency'' and ``public scandal'' laws: In China, homosexuality per se is not criminalized, yet gay men and lesbians are often arrested under charges of ``hooliganism.'' In Romania, Article 200 is used to harass and imprison gay men and lesbians under ``public scandal'' charges. (Scott) Other topics which would fit into this category of abuses include: Persecution of Human Rights Defenders; Prohibition of establishment of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that work on issues of sexual orientation; Harassment of NGOs that do that work; and Abuse of surveillance laws. 3. DISCRIMINATORY LAWS OR DISCRIMINATORY APPLICATION OF LAWS In the United States, three states (Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas) have sodomy laws which target only same-sex sexual behavior--and in other states, facially neutral sodomy laws are more often enforced for homosexual than heterosexual conduct. In Austria and the United Kingdom, age of consent laws are higher for gay men than they are for heterosexual and lesbian couples. Given this broad brushstroke citation of the range of violations we're talking about, I'd like to shift to the next main section of this presentation, in which I seek to name some of the more salient and complicated theoretical points to keep in mind: Not everyone we're talking about is ``gay'' per se. Many people are targets because of real or perceived sexual orientation. First, it is important to note that people who engage in same-sex sexual behavior do not necessarily claim the label of ``lesbian'' or ``gay,'' nor can those terms be used to accurately describe same gender sexual conduct across regions and cultures. The sexual identities people claim often have little to do with how they are perceived. Distinctions in perceptions, labels and identities open up doors for arbitrary discrimination based on appearance. This discrimination could, and does, elicit harassment and violence by police or immigration officials. This is true both for women who appear ``too masculine'' or men who appear ``too effeminate.'' A related point here is that sometimes it is the behavior itself which is deemed ``deviant'' and not, in fact, the appearance of the person engaging in it. Effects here include asylum claims being denied, rape in detention and cases of violence being ignored by police and governments. Gender play a primary role in the enactment of human rights violations. Women often face different and additional obstacles due to sexist proscribed roles within a given society, due to codified government discrimination, and due to the invisibility of women's sexual lives. Women and men often have different legal and de facto access to public space, particularly since in many countries women are restricted by family and societal discrimination in ways that affect their mobility. This has particular bearing on lesbians' (and all women's) ability to leave the countries in which they are being persecuted in order to (a) simply escape, and (b) engage in an asylum process. Partly because of this difference in access to public space, gay men are more often targeted under sodomy or ``public scandal'' laws--in effect, their sexual expression is more ``public'' and more apt to be scrutinized by the state in particular ways. Sodomy laws in some countries (Armenia, Chile, Ghana and India, among other nations, target only male same-sex sexual behavior). While some might argue that this invisibility ``protects'' lesbians from persecution under these laws, in truth, it is clear that this is far from the case. Women are often harassed under these and other laws, are subjected to rape, sexual abuse and forced pregnancy, and ultimately suffer from sexism as well as homophobia in any given society. Sodomy laws differ from culture to culture, and within the U.S., from state to state. There are no fixed definitions of sodomy, no standard understandings of what comprises it or who can commit it. ``Sodomy'' can mean two men in a longstanding monogamous relationship having sex in the privacy of their bedroom, or it can mean particular sex acts committed by married heterosexual people. The last main point: Police, other state agents and government officials often act with impunity--It is too often true that the general public as well as law enforcement institutions/sites (including courts, police precincts, borders) will not come out publicly in favor of the rights of gay, bisexual and transgender people to be free from harassment and violence. These attitudes allow state actors the sense that they can violate the rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender people with little chance of accountability. This, in turn, affects the willingness of gay people to report harassment, physical abuse and other violations. Fear of reprisal also inhibits proper reporting. Ultimately, there is the risk of a shroud of silence encircling these violations, and the risk of a cycle of abuse as a direct result. In this final section, and in conclusion, I wish to delineate a few of our shared primary goals as human rights activists and lawmakers with regard to human rights violations and sexual orientation. (Please note that we've drawn up specific recommendations which are geared much more to practical use by U.S. lawmakers--I encourage you to take copies before you leave today). Our work--and by ``our'' work I specifically mean that of the domestic non-profit sector along with concerned actors in the U.S. government--i.e. we on this panel and you in this audience--our work calls on all governments to be aware of and accountable for the violations of human dignity, physical integrity and fundamental liberties targeted at lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people. Our work calls for governments to end cycles of impunity which surround violations connected to homosexuality by punishing perpetrators to the fullest extent allowed by law. And our work calls upon us all to consistently include issues of sexuality in all of our conversations and documentation about human rights violations. Given the severity of human rights violations perpetrated because of sexual orientation, identity and conduct, the dialogue about this set of issues must become more prominent in human rights and law-making circles. Those working in NGO circles will work alongside you as we all face those who will engage in both vitriolic hyperbole and subtle attacks on dignity and bodily integrity. This, after all, and at its core, is a matter of principle. As we seek to create a world in which all people recognize that human rights protections are indivisible and afforded to all people, we must work toward providing protections and recourse for those most vulnerable to sexuality-based human rights violations. We must argue together that human rights violations enacted because of sexual orientation are not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, the appropriations bill covering the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State includes funding for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. I want to express my strong support for this appropriation. In the euphoria following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, many people initially thought that Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty was now part of the past and could be downsized or even closed. It was assumed that the surrogate radios had fulfilled their mission of serving as a substitute for free radio broadcasting that did not exist in these countries. But the events of the decade since the fall of the Berlin Wall have demonstrated that many of the Newly Independent States and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe have serious political and economic problems. Authoritarian rule--some have suggested dictatorial rule--threatens the future of Belarus and Slovakia. Unresolved military conflicts have prevented progress in Tajikistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. In still other countries--including Russia, Ukraine, and Romania--political and economic reforms are far from complete. Throughout this area, government structures remain little reformed from Soviet times; on the contrary, they are extraordinarily more corrupt. Mr. Chairman, up to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, RFE/RL in general played a key role in bringing critical information to people who were systematically denied access to any other source of news. The demise of Soviet power happened precisely because more and more people in the USSR and the communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe learned the truth about the Soviet system and demanded changes. At present, Mr. Chairman, RFE/RL presently broadcasts in 23 languages of Central and Eastern Europe and the Newly Independent States. In many of these states, RFE/RL remains a lifeline for people who want to see democracy flourish in their own countries, functioning much as it did for the last 48 years. As a surrogate radio, RFE/RL does not broadcast U.S. government propaganda. Indeed, it has never carried any editorials by U.S. government officials. Despite some press reporting to the contrary, RFE/RL was never simply an anti-communist enterprise. Even though the radio operated on the basis of funds appropriated by the Congress, it has been an independent radio network--with its fundamental commitment to accurate, factual, and timely reporting. That principle underlies all truly free and democratic societies. In the former communist countries which are making steady progress toward democracy and free market economies, RFE/FL has been able to expand its role of surrogate broadcasting into genuine partnership. In many of the countries to which it broadcasts, RFE/RL has opened bureaus, maintains extensive stringer operations, and has entered into contracts with local broadcasters and other media outlets. From the polling that is done, it is apparent that audiences want something from the radio as well. They demand not only news and information, but they also want guidance about how to make the transition from communism to democracy and a free market. They listen to RFE/RL programming as a check against what they are hearing from their own media--a check that helps assure the honesty of the local media, which is still dominated by people trained in the communist past. Mr. Chairman, many of the democratic leaders of Central and Eastern Europe and the Newly Independent States rely on RFE/RL to support the development of political pluralism, the reform of their economics, and the independence of their media. As Czech President Vaclav Havel said: ``These radio stations are significant even after the end of the Cold War. . . not only because human rights are not fully respected [and] democracy has not yet fully matured, but also because they set a goal for the new independent media, creating a healthy competitive environment.'' While taking on these new responsibilities, RFE/RL has successfully relocated, downsized, and incorporated new technologies. It has gone from some 1,600 full-time employees to just 432, and its budget has been reduced from $220 million per year to just $75 million. Such draconian cuts would have destroyed most organizations--but RFE/RL continues to flourish. There is a role--albeit a transformed role--for the radio in the post-Cold War World. Mr. Chairman, there are three important reasons for this. First, in recognition of what the radio has done and continues to do for the people of Central and Eastern Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union, Czech President Havel offered FRE/RL a home in Prague at virtually no cost--$12 per year. Second, employees of the radio have shown their commitment to the ideals of RFE/RL by doing more for less--producing the same number of hours of programming with only one quarter of the staff and one third of the budget. And third, many of us now realize that overcoming the communist past of these countries is a far more difficult task than many of us first assumed. RFE/RL has also been creative in applying new technologies to its tasks. For example, it is now providing news and analysis via the Internet. People can hear and see what is being broadcast by using RFE/ RL's website and RealAudio. More than 2.5 million people visit the website every month--a number that has grown dramatically over the last 2 years. Increasingly, these are visits by citizens of the countries to which the radio broadcasts. Earlier this year, Mr. Chairman, the Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law legislation that directed RFE/RL to begin to broadcast to Iran and Iraq, two countries whose media is anything but free and whose governments have been less than friendly to the United States. We have entrusted to RFE/RL the operation of these Farsi and Arabic language broadcasts in recognition of its past and present role in promoting a free and independent media as a means to promote democracy and international cooperation. These two broadcast services will be on the air in the early fall. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that RFE/RL will continue to broadcast well into the twenty-first century. The radio has made and continues to make a dramatic difference in one of the most historic and sweeping revolutions of our time. With its expanded mission, RFE/RL can play an important role in providing a model of what responsible journalism truly is and in prodding the people of these nations toward the development of truly democratic and pluralistic societies. For all of these critical reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the RFE/RL. Mr. DeLay. Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss an important issue in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill. Since 1996, under Chairman Rogers' leadership, the Appropriations Committee has had before it various proposals, including implementation plans, reports and the like, to attempt to come to grips with the delays in the implementation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 of CALEA that have prevented both the telecommunications industry and law enforcement from complying with its provisions. Nothing, to date, has resolved the issue which affects all of the telecommunications industry, including long distance and local telephone companies, cellular carriers, PCS providers and equipment manufacturers, and the FBI. On October 25 of this year, if the industry is not in compliance with CALEA, fines and penalties of upwards of $10,000 per day may well be levied against all carriers big, as well as, small. Through no fault of their own, the technology and standards are still not set for implementation purposes nearly four years after enactment of the law. Mr. Chairman, I hope this issue can be dealt with this year by the authorizers. I note that on June 22, Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde brought to the floor and passed by voice vote H.R. 3303, the DOJ Authorization bill, which included provisions to delay both the compliance date and reimbursement ``grandfather'' date in CALEA. Furthermore, last week Chairman Hyde wrote a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch to strongly encourage him to pass the bill in the Senate, a copy of which I am including in the Record. If the authorizers are not successful, though, we may need to again and finally resolve this festering problem later this year. Certainty, CALEA's implementation, is critical to both the FBI and the telecommunications industry. Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 16, 1998. Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Orrin: as you know, on June 22, the House of Representatives passed the ``Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act'' for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 (H.R. 3303). That bill is now pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This important bipartisan legislation is a comprehensive three-year reauthorization of the Justice Department's activities and programs. Authorization is the process by which Congress creates, amends, and extends programs in response to national needs. It is perhaps the most important oversight tool that Congress can employ. With respect to the Department of Justice, the law requires that all money appropriated must first be authorized by an act of Congress. Notwithstanding this obligation to authorize, Congress has not properly reauthorized the Department's activities as whole since 1979. Since that time, several attempts have failed either because of bad timing or because the reauthorization bills were loaded with controversial amendments. This 19-year failure to properly reauthorize the Department has diminished the role that the two judiciary committees have traditionally played in overseeing the structure and funding of the Department's activities and programs. The inability of our two committees to regularly reauthorize the Department deprives the Congress of the institutional knowledge and collective wisdom that we have gained through regular oversight. H.R. 3303 is an attempt to improve the efficiency of the Department and an opportunity to reaffirm the authority and responsibility of the authorizing committees. Let me now briefly summarize H.R. 3303. The bill contains four titles. Title I authorizes appropriations to carry out the work of the various components of the Department for three fiscal years. Title I largely adheres to the Department's budget request for fiscal year 1999 by providing nearly $15.5 billion, and it would authorize a 5% increase for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. Title II reauthorizes for two additional years a number of successful programs whose authorizations will expire at the end of fiscal year 1998. Title III would grant permanent authorization for certain inherent and noncontroversial functions of the Department. The Department has requested permanent authorizing authority in the past, and proposed authority has appeared in several reauthorization bills since the last reauthorization in 1989. Title IV would, among other things, repeal the permanent open-ended authorization of the United States Marshals Service. Included as part of the authorization legislation was language amending the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (``CALEA'')--amendments which I fully support. Specifically, section 204 of H.R. 3303 extends the time frame for CALEA compliance and clarifies the ``grandfather'' status of existing telecommunications network equipment facilities and services. These amendments are necessary because of the unfortunate delays that have prevented both law enforcement and the telecommunications industry from fully implementing the provisions of CALEA. Because of these delays, I decided to add section 204 to the Department of Justice Authorization bill. It should be emphasized that section 204 does not alter the underlying substance of CALEA. I have been a supporter of the CALEA statute from its inception and continue to support its full implementation. Nevertheless, with the statutory deadlines only a short time away and recognizing the reality that further work needs to be done before the CALEA requirements go into effect, I went forward with section 204. This is to urge you to give H.R. 3303, including the amendments to CALEA, your active and timely consideration. If you have any questions regarding the Department of Justice Authorization legislation in general, or section 204 in particular, please do not hesitate to contact me or the House Judiciary Committee's Chief of Staff, Tom Mooney. I look forward to working with you and your staff on this important matter. Sincerely, Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I call to the attention of my colleagues in the House a resolution condemning the persecution of Chinese in Indonesia which was recently adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the city of San Francisco. I want to mention in particular two outstanding Supervisors--Mabel Teng and Leland Yee--who took the initiative in calling for a resolution to condemn the at-times brutal treatment of ethnic Chinese living in Indonesia. Mr. Speaker, the recent popular unrest in Indonesia led to gross abuse of the human rights of the Chinese population there. At my direction the Congressional Human Rights Caucus holds a briefing for Members of Congress and congressional staff today to understand the dimensions of this tragic assault against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. The U.S. Government must make clear to the government in Jakarta that such abuses are totally unacceptable, and we must be certain that the Indonesian Government works to prevent the recurrence of such actions. At a hearing of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights which was held last Thursday (July 23) and which focused on human rights in Indonesia, I raised the issue of Chinese human rights violations in Indonesia with our Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, John Shattuck. I want to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, what I said on that occasion. I earnestly hope that the cataclysmic changes which are sweeping over Indonesia today and which will have enormously negative ramifications for tens of millions of Indonesians in an economic sense, will herald the opening up of the process of democratization and respect for human rights--and particularly, respect for the rights of the Chinese population living in Indonesia. One of the sad aspects of our Nation's own human rights record has been our failure to press for equal rights for the Chinese population of Indonesia, which has been pivotal in the economic development of that country. In the hearing last week with Assistant Secretary Shattuck, Mr. Speaker, I asked and received assurance that the Department of State will press the government of Indonesia for a full investigation of the brutal and violent acts taken against the ethnic Chinese community there and that we will actively and aggressively urge full observance of the human rights of Chinese in Indonesia. Mr. Speaker, the resolution recently adopted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is an important statement on this important issue, and I commend Supervisor Teng and Supervisor Yee for their initiative. I submit the full text of this resolution to be placed in the Record. Condemning the Persecution of Chinese in Indonesia Condemning the persecution, racial violence and sexual brutality against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia and urging our congressional representatives to call for a full investigation into these atrocious acts of violence and pressure the Indonesian government for a full investigation to seek accountability and justice. Whereas, recently 1,200 people died in Indonesia as a result of targeted and vicious attacks and riots; and Whereas, ethnic Chinese in Indonesia were targeted for racial violence, looting and sexual brutality; and Whereas, various human rights groups report that at least 70 Chinese women were systematically raped, and 20 of those women died due to complications from their injuries; and Whereas, rape victims included young girls; and Whereas, Indonesian Chinese have been subjected to organized persecution that included looting, burning of churches and homes and mass raping in public; and Whereas, human rights groups, including the Jakarta Legal Aid Institute, have accused the Indonesian government represented by security forces of failing to control the violence, and encouraging the brutality; and Whereas, the Jakarta Legal Aid Institute and other human rights groups have filed a class action lawsuit against the Indonesian government for these attacks; and Whereas, much of the media worldwide covered the student demonstrations in Jakarta, however, the specific reports of the widespread violence and attacks against the ethnic Chinese have been largely ignored; and Whereas, the United States must condemn and denounce these horrific atrocities of violence and express the moral outrage of the American people; therefore be it Resolved, That the Board of Supervisors in the City and County of San Francisco condemns the persecution, racial violence and sexual brutality against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia; and be it Further Resolved, That the Board of Supervisors in the City and County of San Francisco urges that our Congressional Representatives call for a full investigation into these atrocious acts of violence and pressure the Indonesian government for a full investigation to seek accountability and justice.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me today in bidding farewell to Itzhak Oren, who for the past four years has been the Minister for Congressional Affairs at the Embassy of Israel here in Washington, D.C. During this time, he has been a major influence in maintaining and fostering the strong and friendly relationship between the United States and the State of Israel. For Members of Congress and for congressional staff, Itzhak has been a ready source of information and assistance. Mr. Oren will shortly take up his new position as the Ambassador of Israel to Nigeria and Benin. Mr. Oren has served in the Israeli Foreign Ministry for 17 years. Prior to assuming his position in Washington, he was head of the Foreign Ministry's Coordination Department and served as political advisor to Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Yitzhak Shamir. In 1991 and 1992, he was a participant in the multilateral peace talks in Moscow, Tokyo and the Hague. He has served a number of years in the United States as Consul of Israel in Boston, and prior to that he was posted in New York City. Prior to joining the Foreign Ministry, Itzhak served as an officer in the Israeli Defense Forces and as an intelligence analyst. He holds a B.A. degree from Bar Ilan University and an M.A. from the City University of New York.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to call to the attention of my colleagues the work of an exceptional Bay Area photographer, Mr. Geoffrey Clifford. In an exhibit of his photographs-- ``Vietnam: The Land We Never Knew''--he shares with us his images of the people of Vietnam. I believe that it would be helpful for all of us to view Mr. Clifford's beautiful pictures, to obtain a greater understanding of the innate beauty of Vietnam, its ancient culture and its strong people. Those photographs are on display this week in the Cannon Rotunda here on Capitol Hill, and I urge my colleagues to stop for a moment to enjoy this outstanding exhibit. Geoffrey Clifford first arrived in Vietnam not as a photographer, but as a soldier. He served his country as a helicopter pilot for 10\1/2\ months during the early 1970's, flying combat assaults and supply missions from bases in Chu Lai and Da Nang. He experienced Vietnam during its greatest turmoil, when its citizens were divided and its communities and landscapes ravaged by war. Upon his return to the United States in 1972, Mr. Clifford built a career and started a family. But he never forgot Vietnam, and his inescapable memories led to his return many years later. As he wrote in the introduction of his stirring book ``The Land We Never Knew'' (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1989): I was never able to wander along Vietnam's back roads, experiencing life as it might be in that country; never able to see, feel, smell, touch or taste what I wanted; and most frustratingly, never able to make friends with the Vietnamese, to share common feelings in conversation with innocent people. . . . Vietnam was a trauma that had been lingering inside me for more than a decade. Photography allowed me to return and assemble a body of work that might benefit our progress. My sincerest wish is that this book, this ``work in progress,'' will aid others with their perceptions of Vietnam and help guide us away from future tragedies. ``The Land We Never Knew'' has achieved tremendous critical success, as Clifford's pictures are skillfully laid out and beautifully complemented by the poetic and thoughtful text of John Balaban, a professor of English at Pennsylvania State University. The brilliance of this book reflects years of diligent effort by these men; of the 10,000 photographs taken by Clifford over a period of several years, only the finest 200 made it into the book. Wrote the Los Angeles Times: ``His handsome pictures celebrate the beauties of the land and the resilience of its people.'' Since ``The Land We Never Knew'' was published, Clifford's work has appeared in Life, Travel and Leisure, Fortune, and the New York Times Magazine. Today, Mr. Speaker, the House will debate the future of our relationship with Vietnam. Trade, security, and POW/MIA issues may be discussed. Regardless of one's position on these important matters, I believe that it would be of great benefit to each and every one of my colleagues to view this exhibit, as the true beauty of Clifford's pictures rests in its apolitical content. In contrast to most of the Vietnam images that we have seen over the past half-century--war, destruction, bloodshed, assassination--the theme of ``The Land We Never Knew'' is one of resilience. Despite decades of destruction to the culture and communities of Vietnam, we see in Clifford's photographs a people that refuse to allow a legacy of three millenniums collapse in a heap of napalm, bombing, and death. We witness in this beautiful book landscapes that reflect this irrepressibility--beautiful forests, river villages, and lotus ponds that display a pristine radiance seemingly unaffected by years of military strikes and counterstrikes. ``The Land We Never Knew'' is about the Vietnamese nation, not the Vietnamese government. It is about the people of Vietnam, not the Vietnam War. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in praising Geoffrey Clifford, who so ably uses his wondrous talents to communicate a greater understanding and appreciation for Vietnam. I strongly urge my fellow Members to admire his exhibit this week in the Cannon Rotunda.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, San Francisco has two representatives in Congress, and I am proud to join the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my friend and colleague, in expressing my strongest disapproval of this proposed amendment. This amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) should be called the ``Big Brother Amendment,'' because it engages in a preposterous degree of micromanagement of the affairs of a city. And it is not surprising that the national organization representing the mayors of our country and the national organization representing the counties in our country are as opposed to this amendment as are we. It is simply preposterous for the Federal Government to interfere with city ordinances that merely provide for equality of opportunity and fairness. Micromanagement has no role in our legislative process. And to find a subsection of a section of the San Francisco city ordinance to be unacceptable to the Congress of the United States by individuals who favor block grants and who tell us to allow local decisionmaking is so hypocritical as to boggle the mind. But this is not just interference in local decisionmaking. This is a poorly disguised assault on a persecuted minority, and I hope my colleagues across this political spectrum, from the far right to the left, will oppose this amendment. There is no room in our society for fermenting divisions, hate, and persecution, and this amendment should be rejected.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, is this a rhetorical question or a serious question?

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in paying deepest respect and highest tribute to Officers Jacob ``J.J.'' Chestnut and John Gibson, who gave their lives last Friday afternoon in the tragic shootings just a few short steps from the House chamber. Both of these fine officers--like the other men and women who serve as members of the Capitol Police force--are committed to preserving and protecting the security of those of us who serve as Members of Congress, our staff, and the public who have, and should continue to have, access to the U.S. Capitol building. Mr. Speaker, last Saturday morning following the tragic death of these two brave men, President Clinton paid outstanding tribute to these fine police officers and made a powerful restatement of the importance of our Capitol building as a symbol of our nation's democratic government. As the President said, this ``majestic marble building is the symbol of our democracy and the embodiment of our nation. We must keep it a place where people can freely and proudly walk the halls of their government. And we must never, ever take for granted the values for which it stands or the price of preserving them.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask that the full text of President Clinton's remarks be placed in the Record. [From the White House Briefing Room, July 25, 1998] The President: Good morning. The shooting at the United States Capitol yesterday was a moment of savagery at the front door of American civilization. Federal law enforcement agencies and the United States Attorneys Office are working closely with the D.C. police and the Capitol police to ensure that justice is pursued. Meanwhile, I would ask all Americans to reflect for a moment on the human elements of yesterday's tragedy. The scripture says, Greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends. Officer Jacob ``J.J.'' Chestnut and Detective John Gibson laid down their lives for their friends, their co-workers, and their fellow citizens-- those whom they were sworn to protect. In so doing, they saved many others from exposure to lethal violence. Every day, a special breed of men and women pin on their badges, put on their uniforms, kiss their families good-bye, knowing full well they may be called on to lay down their lives. This year alone, 79 other law enforcement officers have made the ultimate sacrifice. Every American should be grateful to them for the freedom and the security they guard with their lives, and every American should stand up for them and stand against violence. Officer Chestnut was a Vietnam veteran, a member of the Capitol Police for 18 years, just months away from retirement. Detective Gibson was a deeply religious man, beloved by his co-workers, and, being from Massachusetts, devoted to the Red Sox and the Bruins. Both leave behind loving wives and children, the affection of neighbors, friends, and co-workers, and the deep gratitute of those who are alive today because of their bravery. In this one heartless act, there were many acts of heroism, by strangers who shielded children with their bodies, by officers who fanned across the Capitol, by Dr. Bill Frist, a renowned heart surgeon before his election to the Senate from Tennessee, who had just put down his gavel when he rushed to tend the injured. To all these and others who stood for our common humanity, we extend the thanks of our nation. To the families of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson, nothing we say can bring them back. But all Americans pray that the power of a loving God and the comfort of family and friends will, with time, ease your sorrow and swell your pride for loved ones and the sacrifice they made for their fellow citizens. To Angela Dickerson, the young woman who was injured in the shooting, we extend our prayers and hope for your speedy recovery. To every American who has been shaken by this violent act, to the millions of parents who have taken your children through those very same doors, I ask you to think about what our Capitol means. All around the world, that majestic marble building is the symbol of our democracy and the embodiment of our nation. We must keep it a place where people can freely and proudly walk the halls of their government. And we must never, ever take for granted the values for which it stands or the price of preserving them. Thank you very much.

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 used national parks. I rise today to urge my colleagues to support legislation which would expand the boundaries of the GGNRA to include an additional 1,300 acres of land adjacent to existing GGNRA parkland. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has bipartisan support and the support of the entire Bay Area Congressional Delegation. Joining me as cosponsors of this legislation are Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, Congressman Tom Campbell, Congressman George Miller, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, Congressman Pete Stark, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. H.R. 4143, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act, will permit the National Park Service to acquire carefully selected natural areas in San Mateo County, primarily in the area in and 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. H.R. 4143 expands 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 would also offer 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 & the 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. The Interior Secretary at that time, James Watt, refused to include Sweeney Ridge in the GGNRA. 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). My 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. 4143, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, as President Clinton is in the People's Republic of China in search of better relations between our two nations, I hope that his efforts will serve to influence the Beijing government to improve its dismal policies on the application of basic international human rights and to respect internationally-recognized trade union rights for workers of China. China's human rights abuses have been chronicled on the floor of this House and in numerous committee and subcommittee hearings on many occasions. These abuses include arbitrary detention, imprisonment for political views and exercise of trade union rights, abuse of prisoners and denial of its citizens' rights to freedom of expression and assembly. In direct contrast to the practices of the government of China, the Republic of China on Taiwan presents a completely different picture. Taiwan is a nation with democratically elected leaders, which respects human rights and trade union rights. Taiwan is a country with a booming economy, but unlike China one does not find forced labor, political repression, and abuse of human rights. In particular, Mr. Speaker, Taiwan guarantees political, economic and press freedoms that are an integral part of civic and political life. Taiwan is a society where workers are freely allowed to form their own unions and to engage in collective bargaining with their employers. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues an excellent opinion article which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle written by Patricia A. Friend, the International President of the AFL-CIO's Association of Flight Attendants, and a member of the AFL-CIO Executive Council. In her article, Ms. Friend accurately reports on the significant gains that have been achieved by Taiwanese workers, and she points up the sharp contrast to the huge difference in the record of Taiwan via- a-vis China when it comes to democratic freedoms, economic progress for its citizens, and the application of and respect for international human rights, trade unions rights and free expression. I commend Ms. Friend for her excellent and timely essay on the state of freedom in Taiwan and I urge my colleagues to give this article the thoughtful attention that it deserves. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, June 16, 1998] Taiwan, Not Mainland, Is on Right Path (By Patricia A. Friend) It has been nearly two decades since U.S. airlines began regular service to Taiwan and mainland China, establishing a direct and important link to the Asia-Pacific region. That tie and the many others established since have helped spur pro-democracy efforts and new freedoms of speech and press-- but only on one side of the Taiwan Strait. While the People's Republic of China is notorious for abuses of human rights, Taiwan celebrates respect for human rights and the right of employees to form and join unions. In fact, about 200 Taiwanese flight attendants who work for United Airlines based in Taipei have joined the other 45,000 members of the Association of Flight Attendants, a member union in the AFL-CIO and a group that I am proud to serve as international president. The Taiwanese flight attendants are the only Taiwanese nationals to be members of a U.S. labor union. This development, as much as any other, underscores the vast differences between mainland China and Taiwan. On the east side of the strait, the people of Taiwan have made dramatic changes in recent years. The island is now a vibrant democracy under the bold leadership of President Lee Teng-hui, the first directly and democratically elected leader in ethnic Chinese history. Last fall the opposition party, the Democratic Progressive Party, took a majority of seats in local elections, clear evidence of the willingness of the Taiwanese people to exercise their newfound right to vote and their freedom to do so. Taiwan is home to 21.6 million people and one of the most dynamic economies in the world. The economic crisis that has rocked so many Asian nations in recent months has left Taiwan virtually unscathed. The tiny island boasts a per-capita income of almost $13,000, status as the world's 13th-largest trading partner and the United States' eighth-largest trading partner. The United states exports $18 billion a year of good to Taiwan, 50 percent more than the United States exports to mainland China. Taiwan has demonstrated a commitment to expanding opportunities there for U.S. businesses. In February, Taiwan and the United States concluded talks, which have been going on for four years, on the terms of Taiwan's entry into the World Trade Organization. U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky said the agreement would ``dramatically open up Taiwan's markets,'' particularly in the areas of agricultural products and industrial goods. Yet despite this progress in the economic arena, America does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and our officials are prohibited from even referring to Taiwan as a ``country.'' Our government refuses to endorse Taiwan's bid to rejoin the United Nations--of which it was a founding member--or other international organizations. The time has come for Americans to take a stand for democracy, freedom and basic human rights in Asia, issues that will probably be on the table when President Clinton meets PRC President Jiang Zemin in Beijing this month. The People's Republic of China shows no sign of changing its inhuman labor policies. The flight attendants in our union salute the people of Taiwan for the progress they have made in recent years and urge the Clinton administration to acknowledge and champion Taiwan's accomplishments in improving the standard of living of its workforce.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my colleagues to the important connection between violence against animals and violence against humans. Recently, we held an important Congressional briefing to explore the link between animal abuse and domestic violence. This briefing was jointly cosponsored by the Congressional Friends of Animals, which our colleague, Christopher Shays of Connecticut, and I chair; the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, chaired by Congresswomen Eleanor Holmes Norton and Nancy Johnson; and the Congressional Children's Caucus chaired by Congresswomen Sheila Jackson-Lee and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and with the support of Congresswoman Elizabeth Furse, Congressman Jon Fox, and Senator Robert Torricelli. Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that individuals who brutalize animals are very often guilty of committing similar crimes against people. Not all of us are aware of the well defined link between cruelty to animals and both domestic violence and violent crimes like murder, assault and serial crimes. Violence towards animals precedes and co-exists with domestic violence including: spouse abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, as well as murder and assault. Unfortunately, pets often serve as surrogate targets of a troubled offender's wrath. A 1997 survey found that 85.4 percent of women in shelters talked about violence towards pets as part of the cruelty at home. Mr. Speaker, Animal Abuse is recognized as a symptom of mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, which considers animal abuse one of the diagnostic criteria of a conduct disorder. Animal abuse can also be an important indicator of future violent behavior. When a child is caught hurting an animal, this problem should be addressed immediately because this problem is not self-correcting. Abusing animals is often a precursor to more violent offenses, and a child that is abusing animals must be taught the value of all life. The FBI has used this connection between animal abuse and violent behavior for two decades in profiling serial killers and violent criminals. Mr. Speaker, we must focus attention on this important connection. If we can help increase reverence for the life of animals, we will foster a greater respect for human life. Strengthening laws against animal abuse and publicizing this issue will serve to protect humans in the long run. Animal abuse is a warning sign, and we must learn to look for it and recognize it. This past week, Mr. Speaker, I introduced H. Con. Res. 286 which expresses the view that the link between violence against animals and violence against humans should be given greater emphasis and that it should be used to identify and treat individuals who are guilty of violence against animals. This resolution notes that animal abuse is a crime in its own right in all 50 states, but such abuse should also be identified and treated because of the link with violence against humans. The resolution also urges research to increase understanding of the connection between cruelty to animals and violence against humans. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to statements that were given at the recent briefing on this issue. I want to mention the remarks of Barbara Sweeney, a social worker from Alexandria, Virginia. She testified that individuals who batter often abuse animals to threaten, control, and intimidate their partner. Ms. Sweeney also discussed how the Alexandria Domestic Violence program addresses the link of violence through such programs as counseling and humane education for children who witness this form of abuse and are deeply affected. The Alexandria Domestic Violence Program has taken this link seriously and should be considered a model program. A number of distinguished and well-informed experts provided outstanding testimony at this important briefing. They were Kim Roberts, M.S.W., First Strike Campaign Manager for the Humane Society of the United States; Special Agent Alan C. Brantley of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Julie Bank of the ASPCA (the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) and founder of the ASPCA'S Family VISION (Violence Information Sharing, Intervention, and Observation Network); and Suzanne Barnard, M.S., Assistant Director of the Children's Division of the American Humane Association. Mr. Speaker, I ask that their statements be placed in the Record, and I ask that my colleagues give careful and thoughtful attention to their remarks. Congressional Informational Briefing--Animal Abuse and Domestic Violence (By Kim Roberts) The HSUS' campaign about the connection between animal cruelty and human violence is called ``First Strike'' because the first strike is often against the family pet. The family pet may be the most vulnerable victim in a violent household. Violence against a family pet is often used to control, manipulate or terrorize family members. Animal abuse can also be a warning sign that the violence is escalating. Taking animal cruelty seriously offers an opportunity to intervene in violent households and with violent individuals, and strong anti-cruelty laws can provide the means. Through enforcement of laws and intervention with perpetrators we may prevent future violence against animals and people. In a violent household, all family members are victims. Enforcement of strong anti-cruelty laws can also provide an opportunity to provide assistance to other victims in the family. Strong state anti-cruelty laws are a major focus of The HSUS. Some of the key components of a strong anti-cruelty law include a wide range of options such as felony provisions, psychological evaluation and counseling, a wide range of available fines and prison sentences, restitution, reimbursement of costs, seizure of animals and community service. Cross-reporting and cross-training of humane investigators and those charged with investigating child abuse and domestic violence are also valuable tools in the identification of current and possible future victims of violence, both human and animal. In addition to supporting strong anti-cruelty laws elected officials and other leaders can also help address this issue by encouraging data collection and research at the local, state and federal level; support emergency housing programs for pets of individuals seeking to leave a violent situation and the development of community coalitions; stronger penalties for perpetrators who abuse animals in front of a child; and mandatory reporting of animal cruelty. The next steps to prevent violence include formal recognition by the federal government of the connection between animal cruelty and various forms of human violence; assistance in making others aware of the connection through inclusion of this connection in discussions of violence- related issues; cooperation between various government agencies and organizations interested in anti-violence efforts; inclusion of animal cruelty in state and federal level crime data collection; and the incorporation of animal abuse into the Justice Department's comprehensive plans for research and program development in violence-related areas such as domestic violence, child abuse, youth violence, etc. The main message I would like to leave you with is that strong anti-cruelty laws don't just protect animals, they protect people too.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, while the Internet is a wonderful technological tool providing information on a host of subjects and permitting the rapid dissemination of great deal of information on an incredible variety of topics, the Internet is also being used by hate mongers and bigots to peddle their nefarious lies. A few days ago, my dear friend Mr. Jerry Turk, the President of the Las Vegas Office of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), delivered an excellent speech at the ADL's Distinguished Community Service Award Dinner in Las Vegas. His remarks ``Hate on the Internet'' are an excellent introduction to the problem of the abuse of the Internet by racist fanatics and a discussion of the difficulties that we face in attempting to deal with this serious issue. Mr. Speaker, I submit Jerry Turk's remarks to be placed in the The Record, and I urge my colleagues to give them thoughtful consideration. This is a matter of considerable importance, and we in the Congress need to be aware of it. ``Hate on the Internet,'' Remarks by Jerry Turk, President of the Las Vegas Office of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Just for the moment this evening, I would like to ask each one of you for a favor. Please imagine yourself sitting at your computer, accessing the Internet--whether through America On Line, Netscape, Microsoft's Explorer, or whatever--and being told you have E-mail. Then, upon checking your mail, you read the following message: Subject: ``Idiotic Jews who waste their lives away. Message: All you worthless Jews should go to hell, together with your lame-ass skull caps. Die, you worthless, good for nothing, Christ-killers.'' This is a portion of an actual E-mail that was sent to thousands of people, which was turned over to the Anti- Defamation League by a recipient that was a subscriber to a Jewish issues publication. The ADL, which was founded 85 years ago, is in the forefront of the struggle for civil rights in America. ADL, through its many offices, combats all forms of prejudice, bigotry, anti-semitism, discrimination and hate. Our Las Vegas offices has existed for about two years, and because of the help of many of you who are here this evening, it has made great progress in carrying out its mission. However, in spite of all of our accomplishments, Hate on the Internet is posing a new, very formidable challenge. ADL is working towards meeting this challenge. However, this task is not easy, as ``High-Tech Hate'' is not only growing, but is becoming more diverse. Let me give you some examples: On one of a number of Ku Klux Klan web sites, one can play the Klan's version of hangman. The user gets to hang a character called, and I quote, ``Leroy'', an African-American male. Once you have completed the lynching, the computer screams, ``you win''; or Perhaps you are aware that the holocaust was a fraud and it never happened. Allow me to quote from a notorious holocaust denier's web site: ``For fifty years the press, Hollywood, radio, television, and public schools have saturated us with the story that the National Socialist government of Germany carried out an extermination program against the Jews. This is the famous Jewish Holocaust, in which Jews claim six million of their kind were gassed, burned, and made into soap and lamp shades by the Germans. European and American historians and researchers, mostly non-Germans, have shown conclusively that the Holocaust story is a complete fraud. ``Why would such a monstrous fraud be attempted in the first place? The answer is billions of dollars in extortion money, political power, and Jewish racial/cultural solidarity. The Holocaust is used to extort hundreds of billions of dollars from American and German taxpayers''; or The following passage from the same site, which site by the way, runs in excess of 10 pages: ``The Diary of Anne Frank was shown in 1980 to be another crude example of hate propaganda. In a series of court cases the entire diary was definitively shown to have been written by the same person, but that person often used ball-point pen ink which was not manufactured until 1951, years after Anne Frank's death from disease! The fact that many people still believe this hoax shows the effectiveness of Jewish control in our media and schools, where children in America, Germany and elsewhere are still forced to read this Jewish hate propaganda. Finally, from David Duke on Tiger Woods from his extensive web site: ``A number of White men will be suckered in by a wave of admiration and emotion for one Black golf player into believing that the Black race can fit in and do well among the White race. That is simply untrue. Some individual Blacks obviously can. But, as a whole, the race cannot. For the mental abilities that go into the making and maintaining of a civilization are not the same as the requirements for a great golf player. The qualities that account for the advancing and maintaining of a scientific and civilized society are simply not the same as the qualities to run a 100 meters under 10 seconds or dunk a basketball, or for that matter, break the Masters record as a rookie. With the avalanche of equality propaganda, millions who admire Woods might pleasantly imagine that an unknown Black young man who wants to move into the apartment next door will be like a Tiger Woods. The truth is that he is exponentially more likely to be like a Willie Horton or a Rodney King.'' As you can see, the World Wide Web is fertile ground for hate-mongers with hate ideas. Our children are especially vulnerable to these materials, because they are most likely to accept them as fact. At the end of 1997, there were an estimated 56 million people in the United States using the Internet. It is estimated that by the end of 1998 this number will grow to 75 million. Anyone can legally start a site on the Internet, and once started they can published anything they please. There is no requirement that the author of a web site accurately identify him or herself. The same is true of a user of a web site. Hate messages on the Internet have been likened to anonymous phone calls or letters, except these messages can be sent simultaneously to hundreds of thousands of people. These bigots can spew their hatred without ever running the risk of being identified. Unlike traditional media, where publishers, editors and reviewers are able to separate out lies and distortions, the Internet makes all kinds of information available. As these individuals and organizations spread their venom across the World Wide Web, what can we do--what can the ADL do? I can tell you the ADL is struggling on how to combat this hate in whatever form it takes. The dilemma here, however, is how to expose this filth and help protect people from it, without violating our first amendment rights. One approach ADL is taking is working with America On Line to design software that will filter out all sites it considers to be engaged in the spread of hate. However, all ADL can do is make a recommendation to the user, because in the final analysis, each individual user will have to make their own choice. ADL, nationally, as well as here is Las Vegas, is working diligently to address these and other equally important issues. But it cannot do so without your help. We need your help now to build our Las Vegas ADL office into the leader it has to be for our community. If you truly care about the Las Vegas Valley; if you truly care about the intellectual environment our children are exposed to; if you truly care about the future of our community, you will support the Anti-Defamation League. I need you, ADL's board needs you, the community needs you, but most importantly, your family needs you--to help. Please help. Please be there. Remember, if not you--then who?

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, our distinguished colleague and my friend and neighbor in San Francisco, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, is the author of an excellent article marking the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the modern state of Israel. The article, which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on Wednesday, June 4, is an outstanding discussion of the commitment to the dream of the state of Israel by those pioneers who, from the ashes of the Holocaust, made the desert bloom. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Congresswoman Pelosi's article be placed in the Record. I commend this article to my colleagues, and I urge them to give it careful and thoughtful attention. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Thursday, June 4, 1998] Diverse Group of Pioneers Built a Dream (By Nancy Pelosi) As Israel celebrates its 50th anniversary, we in the United States join in celebrating 50 years of friendship, a mutually beneficial alliance and the great future possibilities that exist for the U.S.-Israel partnership. In looking back over 50 years, it is useful to remind ourselves of Israel's short history. In many ways, it mirrors America's early days as well as those of San Francisco, a city built by pioneers and blessed with diverse and skilled citizens. What we in the United States and the citizens of Israel now take for granted was, only a short time ago, nothing but an improbable dream. Like those who founded our nation, Israel's founding leaders sought to build a nation that would serve as an example to the world and a new home to those who fled oppression and tyranny. After only 50 years of independence, a sophisticated, stable, and reliable Western democracy has been built in the sands of the Middle East, a region that cannot claim any other democracies. Israel has developed a world-class educational system and a high-tech economy. During the past 50 years, Israel has absorbed immigrants and refugees from more than 100 countries, people with different cultures, languages and backgrounds to create a nation with a common language and a 98 percent literacy rate. Israel has a challenge and a responsibility to continue to combat prejudice and respect the cultural heritage of Jews from other countries as well as the rights of Arabs in Israel. As a nation of immigrants who have sacrificed for freedom, independence and democracy, we Americans have shared in the tragedies and triumphs of the Israeli people during their first 50 years. In fact, Israel's survival would not have been possible without the help and friendship of the U.S. government. Israel continues to face existential threats and challenges; her future cannot, unfortunately, be taken for granted. Only seven years ago, SCUD missiles fired by Saddam Hussein were directed at Israel's population centers but, fortunately, caused minimal damage. Since those attacks, Saddam Hussein has made no secret of the fact that he is seeking more accurate missiles and the biological and chemical arsenal to cause devastation within Israel. Iran is well on the way to acquiring the technology needed to build its own accurate missiles as well as actively seeking a nuclear, biological and chemical weapons capability. So, in many ways, the challenges to Israel of the next 50 years are far greater than those of the first 50. For many reasons--strategic, historic, religious and moral--American support for Israel has been generous. The United States has played and will continue to play an important role in ensuring Israel's success. As a member of Congress, and as the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee's Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I am proud to have had a unique opportunity to help build and maintain the very special relationship that exists between the United States and Israel. That relationship will continue to serve both nations as we look ahead--as friends and partners and allies--to the special challenges we face together in the next 50 years.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, recently I introduced legislation to promote better business, protect consumers, increase the efficiency of the federal government, contribute to scientific progress, and protect animals. H.R. 3946--The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 1998--is a non- partisan, non-controversial bill that emphasizes the protection of human health as well as animal health by facilitating the acceptance of alternative testing methods. Mr. Speaker, there has never been such an impressive marriage of diverse interests working together to supply the same legislation. I am honored and delighted that H.R. 3946 is supported by the Procter & Gamble Company, the Gillette Company, the Colgate-Palmolive Company, the American Humane Association, the Humane Society of the United States, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Doris Day Animal League, and over 6.5 million Americans who have demanded viable alternatives to animal testing whenever possible. Animal tests have been used for over fifty years by federal regulators to test for product safety. In the last decade, however, biotechnology companies have researched, developed, and manufactured alternative testing procedures that are just as effective as outdated animal testing, but these newer technologies currently have no established avenue for receiving approval by federal agencies. By continuing to promote antiquated, although generally accepted, animal tests, federal agencies have put up an unnecessary roadblock to scientific and technological progress and innovation. Mr. Speaker, in an effort to eliminate duplicative efforts and to increase communication in cross-cutting levels of different Federal regulatory agencies, the ground-work for the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) under the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) was laid by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993. The ICCVAM has functioned solely on an ad-hoc basis since that time and was the first body to establish criteria for the validation and acceptance of alternative methods. This important committee has functioned well and recently completed a final report receiving acknowledgment from federal agencies. Under the NIEHS Applied Toxicological Research and Testing Program, ICCVAM Contracts were listed in the Federal Register: $666,950 (year one), $691,308 (year two), $717,167 (year three), with two additional option years. In contrast, the NIEHS budget for FY1998 was over $300 million. The ICCVAM is a body that more than pays for itself in terms of its worth to the Federal agencies and its contribution to industry and the public. H.R. 3946 will raise the ICCVAM to standing committee status and thus we can continue to move forward into the next century recognizing and supporting scientific progress. For years, the regulated industries and the bio-tech companies that engineer alternative testing methods have endured a frustrating, confusing Federal process for test method review and approval. Despite the fact that many companies have committed themselves to ensuring human safety while decreasing the usage of unnecessary animal tests, the federal government has remained unresponsive to their concerns. Mr. Speaker, these businesses have petitioned Congress to authorize the ICCVAM, thus simplifying the process for evaluating new tests. I have introduced legislation that, for the first time, provides for gathering information in a single body for agencies, companies, animal protection advocates, and the consumer. H.R. 3946 requires that agencies be accountable for providing the appropriate information regarding all regulations, requirements, and recommendations on the animal tests under their respective jurisdictions. Federal agencies with jurisdiction over toxicity tests would be required to review and identify all regulations that require animal use for toxicity tests and forward the list to the ICCVAM. Mr. Speaker, by adopting this legislation, the Congress will demonstrate a commitment to increasing the health and environmental safety of Americans. H.R. 3946 will open the doors to more technologically-advanced methods of research that will more closely replicate the reactions of the human body than does the current research that is done on animals. When a method meets a specific endpoint for specific agencies, or needs multiple agency acceptance, the ICCVAM can encourage agencies to modify their recommendations and/ or requirements to reflect the best new scientific methods. H.R. 3946 requires that agencies notify the ICCVAM within 180 days of receiving the ICCVAM's recommendations. The ICCVAM does not mandate the acceptance of any alternative testing method; it requires that federal agencies consider the ICCVAM's recommendations on new test methods and provides strict criteria under which the federal agencies can reject the alternative testing method. Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, each agency under current federal statute has the ultimate authority to accept or reject recommendations in any situation under its regulatory jurisdiction. Importantly, H.R. 3946 will end the incentive for companies to prefer status quo animal tests by giving the ICCVAM the authority to make an otherwise fragmented regulatory process coherent, cost-efficient, and accessible so that industry can more readily market its products. Mr. Speaker, when the NIEHS worked towards the goal of establishing the ad-hoc ICCVAM as a single review body for the entire federal government, the objective was to end the usage of inappropriate tests from as far back as the 1940's before we stepped into the 21st century. Without the ICCVAM, we will fall short of maximizing health and human safety protections for all consumers. H.R. 3946 prioritizes high human health standards. Mr. Speaker, to ensure that there is no confusion in its objectives and jurisdictions, H.R. 3946 also contains a specific exemption for regulations, guidelines, or recommendations related to medical research, expressly written into the bill. In effect, Mr. Speaker, medical research is not directly regulated by the federal agencies in the same manner as product testing. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to introduce the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 1998. I believe that H.R. 3946 streamlines the federal bureaucracy while increasing human safety and progress while refining, reducing, and replacing animal testing. We in Congress must ensure that as we step into the next century, the federal government works efficiently to demonstrate leadership in scientific advancement while emphasizing human health and animal health. With these goals in mind, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me by supporting this bill. Recently, Mr. Speaker, I held a briefing on H.R. 3946. This legislation was broadly supported by the public and by all those who would be affected by this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I would like to defer at this time to the comments of the industry experts, scientists, and animal protection advocates, and federal agency representatives who have been integral in the creation of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, several of these distinguished professionals attended a briefing which I chaired and spoke out in support of H.R. 3946 and the merits of the ICCVAM. I ask that the full text of their testimonies be placed in the Record. Text of Presentation by Dr. Katherine Stitzel, The Procter & Gamble Company The Procter & Gamble Company is pleased to be here today to support the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 1998. P&G is one of the largest consumer products companies in the world. Our products our under the sink and in the bathroom medicine cabinet in nearly every home in America and used by billions of people around the world. We have an obligation to ensure our many products are safe not only when they are used as intended, but also when they are accidentally ingested by children, splashed into your eye, or used in other ways which were not intended. We believe the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 1998 is a very important step in industry's efforts to reduce the use of animals while ensuring product safety. As science has progressed over the years industrial toxicologists have been constantly researching new ways to assess the effects of new products and ingredients. In the last fifteen years we have concentrated on developing and gaining regulatory acceptance of alternative methods, that is methods that reduce the number of animals necessary or the stress caused to the animals or that replace animals with an in-vitro or non- animal method. We have spent over $64MM dollars on this effort and reduced our animal use for non food/non drug testing by over 85% since 1984 even though the Company is more than three times larger than it was in 1984. While we cannot predict every possible toxicological effect with an alternative test, there are many effects, such as the ability of a material to penetrate the skin, where we still find ourselves having to resort to what we believe is unnecessary animal testing. this is because the process for getting regulatory agencies to accept improved toxicological methods is time consuming, difficult and very rarely successful. Each new test must be submitted for evaluation and approval to each agency--sometimes to several different divisions within one agency. As the agencies are very busy, most do not have the time to carefully evaluate new test methods and therefore they opt to continue to use their current methods. Think about it, we are about to begin the 21st century using many toxicology methods that were originally developed in the 1940's. I can think of few other fields where acceptance of scientific progress has been so effectively blocked. Recognizing this problem in the early 1990's P&G joined other companies and animal welfare organizations to support inclusion of language in the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 which directed National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to ``establish criteria for validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative testing and recommend a process through which scientifically validated methods can be accepted for regulatory use''. NIEHS worked with 15 government agencies and with the public to develop what we believe will be an effective solution--to create a single review body for the entire federal government. This organization, ICCVAM, is comprised of representatives from the various federal agencies that use animal testing. It will encourage the development of improved testing methods, particularly alternative tests, and evaluate these new methods for the entire government. This simplified process will be much more efficient. It will also be more effective because ICCVAM scientists will be expert in evaluating new test methods. We are very supportive of the proposal, and feel it is important to make ICCVAM a permanent part of the

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the memory of one of our Nation's most compassionate and principled leaders--Robert Francis Kennedy, who was assassinated thirty years ago today. He served our country as Attorney General and United States Senator, but his legacy cannot be measured by mere titles and offices; rather, his greatness can only be understood by understanding the uncompromising morality of his political philosophy, his devotion to the most downtrodden in our society, and the intellectual eloquence of his efforts to communicate their needs to the rest of the American community. Robert F. Kennedy believed that one person, standing alone and guided only by the courage of his or her convictions, could move metaphorical mountains. His inspirational words to the oppressed black people of South Africa, spoken 32 years ago today, capture this spirit. They apply not just to those who were fighting against the brutal racism of apartheid, but to all of us. These words apply in particular to the life of Robert F. Kennedy. Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. * * * It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. Robert F. Kennedy rode the crest of an immense wave, serving as the nucleus of so many great progressive causes that marked the 1960's and helped mold a more just society, one less encumbered by bigotry, poverty, and apathy. His numerous lofty causes reflected these high ideals. Senator Kennedy fought for civil rights with a moral intensity rarely matched by the most legendary of noble crusaders. During his visit to South Africa, a land fractured by the scourge of apartheid, he addressed the most controversial questions with the absolute certainty of a man driven by the righteous rectitude of his cause. When asked at the University of Witwatersrand to respond to charges that blacks were too barbarous to be entrusted with power, he replied: ``It was not the black man of Africa who invented and used poison gas and the atomic bomb, who sent six million men and women and children to the gas ovens.'' He condemned the race-baiting leaders of South Africa to their faces, leaving no doubt about the moral degeneracy of their policies. Robert F. Kennedy's quest for human rights was felt most strongly by his own countrymen. As Attorney General, he did not hesitate to stare down Southern governors who attempted to curry favor with the Ku Klux Klan by denying justice and opportunity to minorities. He sent federal marshals to integrate the University of Alabama, the University of Mississippi and other public institutions, withstanding vicious personal attacks against him in order to break down centuries-old barriers of hatred. As a United States Senator, he worked diligently to pass a wide array of civil rights legislation, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And as a presidential candidate in 1968, he uttered the following words to a crowd of black men and women in Indianapolis as he informed them of the tragic death of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.: What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness, but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who will suffer within our country, whether they be white or they be black. These were the words of a man who had known great pain after the assassination of his brother, but had overcome his hatreds to strive for a greater cause. His words touched the audience and helped to ease their immense pain at the loss of their leader. Senator Kennedy's devotion to America's underprivileged extended to those whose problems were economic as well as social. He spoke with sharecroppers in Mississippi, hungry families in Appalachia, dispossessed Indian youths on the reservations, and migrant workers in California. He listened rather than preached to them, grasping their pain and fighting with them to ease it. Kennedy understood their longing for self-sufficiency, not government handouts. He campaigned tirelessly to provide a platform from which they could rise above their hellish circumstances: investment in impoverished cities and towns, comprehensive welfare reform (decades ahead of its time), strong advocacy for the expansion of educational opportunity, and the implementation and enforcement of labor laws to protect abused workers and, especially, exploited children. Kennedy believed most passionately in the need to provide a better society for these young people: on the opening page of his 1967 book ``To Seek A Newer World,'' he quoted the French intellectual Albert Camus: ``Perhaps we cannot prevent this world from being a world in which children are tortured. But we can reduce the number of tortured children. And if you don't help us, who in the world can help us do this?'' Kennedy's disgust at the mistreatment of children is most movingly shown by the story of a trip to a migrant worker camp in upstate New York in 1967. The noted historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., recorded an account of this visit in his biography ``Robert Kennedy And His Times.'' * * * The owner's sign warned: ANYONE ENTERING OR

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the strong link between violence against animals and violence against people, and to call to the attention of my colleagues House Concurrent Resolution 286 which urges greater attention to identifying and treating individuals who are guilty of violence against animals because of the link between abuse of animals and violence against humans. The resolution also calls for additional research to increase our understanding of the connection between cruelty to animals and violence against humans. After the recent school shootings in Arkansas and Oregon, heavy attention has been paid to the early signs of the potential for children to commit violent crime. It is no coincidence that the accused in these two tragic cases are juveniles with disturbing histories of animal cruelty and abuse. Mr. Speaker, it is common sense knowledge that any individual who harms animals cruelly and deliberately is not otherwise well adjusted. Mr. Speaker, the FBI already lists violence against animals as a behavioral trait and characteristic of violent offenders. Almost all serial killers are known to have abused animals. Indeed, cruelty toward animals is often a sign of mental disturbance in both children and adults. Teachers, principals, parents, and law enforcement officers must all be encouraged to recognize this connection and to take incidences of animal cruelty seriously. An abused animal is often a sign that a spouse, a child, or an elder in the household is or may become the victim of aggression and abuse. A pet may be a surrogate target of violence. Abuse of a household pet often fuels violent tendencies that are a precursor to acts of violence against family members and others. Violence against animals co-exists with and precedes violent crimes, especially crimes of domestic violence. The Federal Government must not overlook this correlation. By studying this link, we can increase awareness and understanding of violent crime and the potential violent crimes in our homes, in our schools, and in our communities. Furthermore, we must reject the notion that violence against animals is simply normal societal behavior. If we treat cruelty to animals with a dismissive ``boys will be boys,'' we may well be ignoring critical initial signs that may lead to violent behavior and we may be passing up an opportunity to take action to prevent a future tragedy. By allowing children and adults to abuse animals without sanction, Mr. Speaker, we are ignoring an important tool in the fight against domestic violence and an important tool in helping to prevent other tragic acts of violence such as those we have seen in Arkansas and Oregon. Mr. Speaker, the legislation I have introduced today with the cosponsorship of thirteen of our colleagues expresses the sense of Congress that appropriate Federal agencies thoroughly support and incorporate research on the connection between acts of cruelty against animals and humans. Furthermore, it recognizes the validity and significance of this link. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in encouraging research and awareness about this disturbing connection between violence against animals and violence against people. I ask that the full text of this resolution be placed in the Record. H. Con. Res. 286 Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the link between violence against animals and violence against humans and urging greater emphasis upon identifying and treating individuals who are guilty of violence against animals, which is a crime in its own right in all 50 states, in order to prevent violence against humans and urging research to increase understanding of the connection between cruelty to animals and violence against humans. Whereas as urgent need exists to prevent violence, especially among juvenile offenders and in domestic situations; Whereas a strong correlation between animal abuse and violence against humans has been documented by criminal profiling experts associated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who have identified cruelty to animals as one of the three traits often found in the ``homicidal traid'' which indicates the characteristics of a violent personality; Whereas a disproportionately high number of violent killers in the prison system admit to having abused animals, and virtually every serial killer and many violent killers have a history of abusing animals; Whereas many of the recent cases of school violence have involved students with a history of abusing animals; Whereas individuals who deliberately abuse animals are more likely to abuse their spouse and their children or otherwise be involved in violent crimes; Whereas some experts believe that abusing animals may increase or fuel the desire to commit violence against humans in certain disturbed individuals; Whereas animal cruelty is violence and should be recognized as such when assessing an individual's propensity to commit future acts of violent crime; Whereas intentional animal abuse is an early warning signal that individuals, including young people, could perpetrate violent crimes against other individuals; and Whereas laws against cruelty to animals have been enacted in all 50 states and provide penalties for the purposeful torture and killing of animals, and the enforcement of these animal abuse laws provide law enforcement officials with an opportunity to bring potentially violent offenders into the criminal justice system before they commit more serious crimes against humans; Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress-- (1) recognizes that individuals who abuse animals are more likely to commit more serious violent crimes against humans; (2) urges social workers, teachers, mental health professionals, and others to be aware of the connection between animal cruelty and human violence and to evaluate carefully and to monitor closely individuals who have a history of abusing animals because this may indicate a propensity to commit violence against other humans; (3) urges appropriate Federal agencies to encourage and support research to increase the understanding of the connection between cruelty to animals and violence against humans in order to utilize instances of animal abuse to identify and intervene with potentially violent individuals, and urges federal agencies which are undertaking research on violent crime and its causes to incorporate examination of the link between violence against animals and violence against humans; (4) urges local law enforcement officials to treat cases of animals cruelty seriously both because such cruelty is a crime in its own right in all 50 states and because it is a reliable indicator of the potential for domestic and other forms of violence against humans; and commends the fine work of local animal control officials and humane investigators who enforce laws against animal abuse and urges these professionals to work more closely with local law enforcement personnel to identify and prevent potential violence against humans.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last week a bipartisan congressional delegation led by our colleagues, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Democratic Leader Richard A. Gephardt, visited Israel to celebrate 50 years of friendly relations between the Congress of the United States and the State of Israel. This was an extraordinary occasion, Mr. Speaker. The visiting Members of Congress spent many hours in serious and substantive meetings with the President, the Prime Minister, leading members of the Israeli Cabinet, and our counterparts who serve in the Israeli Knesset across the whole political spectrum. During this visit, Mr. Speaker, significant remarks were made on a number of occasions by the leaders of the U.S. Congressional delegation. Two speeches on two separate occasions, however, stand out in my mind as being particularly important. The first was the address to the Knesset by our Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on May 26. The second was the speech by Democratic Leader Richard A. Gephardt at the Gala Dinner at the Israeli Knesset Honoring Fifty Years of Congressional-Israeli Friendship on the evening of May 25. Mr. Speaker, I include these two addresses to be included in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to consider thoughtfully these two statements on the importance of the United States relationship with Israel as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel. Address of Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich to the Israeli Knesset--May 26, 1998 Speaker Dan Tichon and Mrs. Tichon, ministers and deputy ministers of the government of Israel, members of the Knesset, former Knesset, speaker Shlomo Hillel, former members of the Knesset my congressional colleagues, distinguished guests and friends--and as I look out, I see friends, many of whom go back for many years. It is a great honor to stand before you today in the Knesset, the one truly democratic parliament in the entire Middle East. For 50 years, the Knesset has led a nation that has gathered in people from over a 100 lands, survived the perils of many wars and built a thriving nation out of the desert. As we celebrate the remarkable achievements of the last 50 years, let me simply say ``Kol ha kavod''-- to you.'' Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt and I have joined with the largest bipartisan gathering of congressmen and senators ever to visit Jerusalem. We are here to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Israel's rebirth as a modern state. We commemorate 50 years of a close and cooperative relationship between our two countries and our two peoples. In a sense, however, we are not only celebrating the last 50 years. The American and Israeli people are bound together by 3,000 years of a shared and ancient tradition. We are bound together by a common spiritual experience. It is a bond that is felt most powerfully here in this city. As we overlook Jerusalem, and look at the sights that touched the lives of Abraham, David and Christ, we understand the depth of a relationship that is far more than shared geo-political interest. We are bound together morally. Our two countries are committed to freedom, democracy, the rule of law and individual rights. We are bound together by pure friendship. It has been a privilege for me to return to Israel and spend time with our leaders, some of whom I've known for almost 20 years for Marianne, it has been a chance to see friends she worked with on the Israeli free trade zone issues. A member of our delegation, Congressman Tom Lantos, a survivor of the Holocaust, first visited Israel in 1956. And this is his 57th trip to visit Israel. Two key chairmen in our delegation, Bob Livingston and Ben Gilman, have coupled their leadership in Congress with a deep understanding and love for the land and people of Israel. Another member, Congressman Henry Waxman, returns to Israel often to visit his daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren who live here. The ties that bind America to Israel are greater than the economic and security interest that our nations share. We are two nations grown from a common source--both forged by the courage and imagination of pioneers, and both expressing in our founding documents our ultimate reliance on divine providence. As we celebrate with you, we remember together the courage of David who established Jerusalem 3,000 years ago as the political and spiritual capital of the Jewish people. We commemorated that event the last time Marianne and I saw Prime Minister Rabin alive at an event in our Capitol, in the rotunda, to celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of Jerusalem. Prime Minister Rabin spoke with deep emotion of his own ties of Jerusalem, the city where he was born and the city he fought to defend throughout this life. We in Congress stood with him then and stand with you today in recognizing Jerusalem as the united and eternal capital of Israel We remember the commitment of the early Zionists who convened the first Zionist congress a century ago, lived through the horror of the Holocaust, and finally witnessed the birth of a Jewish homeland in Eretz Israel. We remember the story of the last 50 years, of a state that has survived wars and countless acts of terrorism to maintain its place among the nations. We remember with you because we believe that the anniversary of Israel's rebirth is not just a celebration for Israel alone. It is a celebration for all who are inspired by the faith that was born in this land. It is a celebration for all who see in Israel an outpost in the struggle for freedom across the globe. And it is a celebration for all who see in the fundamental relationship between our two countries a remarkable history and a great hope. For we are here to celebrate more than the first 50 years. In a sense, we're here to celebrate the first 3,000 years. And we're not just here to look ahead with you for the next 50 years. We dream of how we--and our children--can build a future that holds more than the hope for mere survival--a future that can lead to a lasting prosperity, an enduring peace and a truly free land. Such a future--one marked by peace, prosperity and freedom--must be built upon an unending commitment to security for those who seek peace. One of our greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan, had a simple strategy to expand freedom across the globe. It came down to three words: peace through strength. He knew that strength was the key to security and that security was essential to peace. He knew that a lasting peace required a durable security. This truth was reinforced for me in a personal and powerful way during this trip to Israel. On Sunday, we visited the Weizmann Institute where we met with some of your most talented scientists to learn about the technological breakthroughs that will shape our mutual future. As we were leaving, I spoke to Manuela Dviri, whose son Yoni was killed in Lebanon on February 26 of this year. A 20-year-old staff sergeant from Kfar Saba, he served in an intelligence unit and died when a mortar round struck his position. Manuela had, in Abraham Lincoln's words, ``laid the most costly sacrifice on the altar of freedom.'' She had lost her son. She still has another son and a daughter and a granddaughter. Yet she said to me-- unequivocally--that she did not believe peace could come without security and this was her formula: ``You should not need two words,'' she said, ``Peace has within it the word security. When you say peace, it must include security or it has no meaning.'' While this tragedy has deprived Manuela of Yoni, I know the deepest hope that she has for her granddaughter, Gali, is a future of peace, freedom and security. We join Manuela Dviri and the rest of the Israeli people in their aspirations for peace. No one can understand the depth of that aspiration unless they have lived so long without peace. And no one can hope to achieve true peace unless it is always coupled with true security. The peace process must ensure that Israel will retain the ability to protect its own citizens from terrorism. It must ensure that Israel maintains secure borders with its neighbors. Without establishing those realities, it cannot succeed. For this reason, we support the Clinton administration when it says that Israel alone must determine its security needs. We cannot allow non-Israelis to substitute their judgment for the generals that Israel has trusted with its security. If Israel is to take risks for peace, as she has often done in the past, it must be risks she accepts, not risks that are imposed upon her. While the peace process is designed to provide security within Israel and on her borders, perhaps the greatest threat is beyond the peace process. Israel and the United States now face a growing threat beyond the horizon--weapons of mass destruction in the hands of outlaw dictatorships. Through our victory in the Cold War, the United States and its allies defeated Soviet communism. In the subsequent years, however, rogue regimes in countries like Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Libya emerged from the shadows of the vanishing Soviet empire. In the hands of these dictatorships, weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them have become a dangerous threat to Israel, to the United States and to our allies. Like few others on the planet, Israelis know the real palpable threat from dictatorships that are methodically developing these weapons and delivery technologies. In 1991, 28 Iraqi Scud missiles rained down on Israel, inflicting casualties and portending Israel's vulnerability. We, too, know the consequences of these weapons. Thirty-eight young Americans were killed when an Iraqi Scud struck their barracks in Dhahran. Despite the partial effectiveness of Patriot missiles, at times our only defense was the inaccuracy of the Scuds themselves. In our review of the Gulf War, we discovered that not one Scud or Scud launcher was confirmed as destroyed on the ground in Iraq despite a great effort to do so. Since 1991, rogue dictatorships have relentlessly worked to improve both their weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. Nevertheless, in some quarters, there is a breathtaking avoidance of what these facts imply. If dictatorships work while democracies talk, a catastrophe will become inevitable. For democracies to survive and dictatorships to fail, we must establish a vision of a secure democracy and we must implement three parallel strategies to achieve that vision. Our success must be built on the strategies of containment, defense and replacement. First, we must put unrelenting pressure on anyone assisting these outlaw dictatorships with their weapons programs. We cannot have normal relations with governments, either tolerating or encouraging assistance to these dictatorships, whether the governments are active participants or acquiescent partners. Due to Russian assistance, Iran will reportedly be able to manufacture its own medium-range ballistic missiles by the end of this year, capable of striking Israel and parts of Europe. Russia has also assisted Iraq with its own weapons program. It is time for our patience with the Russian government to come to an end. It should be clearly communicated that Russia's relationship with the United States and Israel--and other nations of the West--will suffer if its actions do not match its commitments. The same message should be expressed to others, including China, who assist these countries in their nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs. We have a range of policy instruments at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic levers, and we should be prepared to use them. The United States must make clear that stopping Iraq and Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction is its most intense goal. And we should organize our allies to jointly prevent these dictatorships from acquiring weapons of terror. Second, we cannot rely solely on containment to protect us from rogue dictatorships developing these capabilities. As these countries develop more and more accurate guidance systems for their missiles, with increasingly virulent biological and chemical warheads, it will become even more urgent to develop effective defenses against these systems. In the United States today, we do not have the military capability to stop even one theater or intercontinental ballistic missile from reaching its target. Our senior military officers would be reduced to scanning the horizon like the rest of us, watching for the missile that could destroy our city, our family, our home. We are totally vulnerable. But we are told that a 25-year-old treaty with a nonexistent entity--the Soviet Union--prevents us from responding to this danger. Israel, not bounded by an outmoded dogma, is taking steps to develop missile defense, and we're assisting in those efforts. We have joined the Israeli government in the Arrow Ballistic Missile Defense Initiative to protect your citizens from this very real threat. The Arrow program is a tribute to the ingenuity and determination of the people of Israel to forge an effective defense for your homeland. The United States must aggressively develop both theater and global missile defenses to complement and reinforce the protection Arrow will provide here in Israel. Containment and defense provide interim security, but they cannot by themselves guarantee success. As long as individual dictators or regimes based on hatred work to develop terror weapons, all democratic societies will be threatened with catastrophe. A single nuclear, chemical or biological device in one of our great cities would create a tragedy of unthinkable proportions. Our third strategy must be to pre-empt catastrophe by insisting that dictatorships be replaced with democracies. Clearly, the free world has the capacity to liberate the people of Iraq. Clearly, the free world has the resources to encourage the people of Iran to complete the process of change which hopefully began with the election of President Khatemi. We need the will, the courage and the determination to work together to replace dictatorships seeking weapons of terror with democracies seeking friendship and economic prosperity. This vision of democratic success and the failure of dictatorships will require the same level of courage and commitment that in World War II defeated Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and imperial Japan. It will require the unrelenting persistence that for 45 years methodically contained; defended against; and in concert with the Russian and other captive peoples, ultimately replaced a communist dictatorship with fledgling democracies. Those democracies, while still struggling, have advanced freedom dramatically from the police state they replaced. Free peoples who've faced down and defeated these dangers should see today's dangerous but fragile dictatorships for what they are: Our opportunities to expand freedom. Sustaining security and establishing freedom will lead not only to peace, but also to economic prosperity. If we achieve peace through security in this region, the economies will flourish. They will flourish, first, because open borders and free trade produce wealth. No one should know this better than the Palestinians. When acts of terror force Israel to seal its border, it is the Palestinians who suffer most. They lose access to the strong Israeli economy, and 100,000 Palestinians are cut off from their jobs. When regional tensions chokes off commerce, it is Israel's neighbors who suffer most. Open borders and free trade allow others to share in Israel's economic growth. In addition, the region's economies will flourish as broad cooperation solves the most pressing problems in the next 50 years. Nowhere is that cooperation more vital than in dealing with the shortage in the region's most precious resource, water. Water has always been a central security concern in this land. Hezekiah enhanced Jerusalem's security dramatically when he protected the Gihon spring, his water source, by extending the walls of the city. Today, water is an equally critical security concern with the future of aquifers like the Yarkon as a principal issue in the peace process. Right now, the United States gives incremental assistance to manage the problem. It has provided hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinians, primarily to tap new sources of water and manage the existing ones. In addition, it has assisted other countries in the region by providing them with Israeli expertise on things like drop irrigation and water recycling. Each of these efforts does assist countries that have a large and growing water deficit. They ultimately have a marginal impact, however. Our challenge for the next 50 years is to find the strategic solution to the shortage of water in the region. We must do more than manage an ever- scarcer resource. We must support the scientific and engineering advances that will erase the shortage of water forever. Israel, the country that caused the desert to bloom, must lead this effort. From the cisterns of Massada to the drip irrigation of today, Israel has learned how to preserve a scarce resource. Today, it is the world's leader on those questions. In the future, Israel should become the world leader on expanding the supply of water. It has both the regional need and the human capital to lower the cost of desalinization and end the shortage of water for the region. The United States has already invested in sharing Israeli expertise with the region, learning to manage a scarce resource. For the future, leadership demands that we do more than simply manage the current options. We, the United States, must invest with Israel to overwhelm the shortage of water with research that will provide fresh water from an abundant source--the oceans that cover most of our planet. Our joint efforts for the future are built on the close relationship between our two countries. This relationship has been fostered in a sustained way by the United States Congress. The strong personal bond that members of Congress feel toward Israel has led to consistent support for the state, reaching back to congressional resolutions as early as 1922 that supported a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Congress approved its first package of aid to Israel--$65 million--in 1951. Congress pressed to maintain Israel's qualitative military edge. It provided emergency military assistance during the Gulf War. Congress approved $10 billion in housing loan guarantees in order to absorb the flood of Jewish refugees from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia. It is Congress that enacted legislation in 1955 that requires our government to move its embassy to Jerusalem, finally recognizing the fact that Jerusalem has been Israel's capital for the last 50 years. As speaker of the United States House, I want to initiate a far more direct relationship between the Knesset and the Congress. Today, Speaker Tichon and I are inaugurating a new U.S.-Israel interparliamentary initiative on strategic cooperation to be pursued by members from the U.S. Congress and Knesset. This effort was conceived by Chairman Uzi Landau of the Knesset's Foreign and Defense Affairs Committee, and Senator Jon Kyl of the U.S. Congress. The initiative will focus on security issues, particularly the crucial question of missile defense. It offers an excellent starting point for broadening and deepening the interaction between the Congress and the Knesset. The relationship we are establishing between Congress and the Knesset will not be unique. As democracy spreads across the region, as it inevitably will, we should work together to broaden the interaction with other democratic parliaments. As we celebrate Israel's 50th anniversary, we honor those, both American and Israeli, whose commitment to security and freedom ensured Israel's survival. Today we must draw inspiration for their example. And let me just close by sharing with you--we've had a wonderful several days. We just had a meeting with your Foreign and Defense Committee that was very direct and very candid on both sides--not quite up to the Knesset standard of bluntness, but we're trying to learn. I just want to share with you for one brief moment the magic that you represent. One hundred years ago, this was Ottoman, Turkish land; Russia was czarist; Germany was imperial; China had not yet had the revolution that ended the Confucian domination and the Manchu was still there; Japan was Imperial in every sense; and democracy was a strange idea in only a few countries. One hundred years later, we're gaining. It's painful. It costs lives. We make big mistakes. If you go to the Yad Vashem, you're reminded with heart- rending clarity of the cost of being wrong. And yet, in America, in Israel, in Europe, in more and more of Asia, in Russia, day by day, this thing that we jointly represent--elect people to speak for you, put them in one room and make them fight it out--this thing is slowly spreading across the planet. I am convinced from our trip here that Israeli democracy has never been more vibrant. It's never had a greater range of potential leaders pushing, shoving, arguing. It's never wrestled more passionately with the future of Israel and its relation with its neighbors. And as an American, I can tell you how much we gained from these days; how stronger we will going home; how much more grateful that you here in the city of David continue to stand for freedom; and how much we want to reach out to work with each and every one of you to make sure that 50 years and 3,000 years from now freedom exists in this land. Thank you for allowing us to visit.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the brave efforts and profound hope of my constituents JoAnn and Carl Rock in the search of their missing son, Robert, and to urge support for the Jennifer's Law Act of 1997. H.R. 2850, which was introduced by my distinguished colleagues, Congressman Jay Johnson, Congressman Nick Lampson, and myself. I urge my colleagues to help all parents who may be seeking to locate a missing daughter or son. Jennifer's Law is necessary to bring relief to families that face endless nights of not knowing where a loved one may be and what has happened to them. This legislation is a simple way of closing a terrible loophole with painful and needless consequences. Mr. Speaker, Jennifer's Law will bring peace and relief to thousands of American families whose sons and daughters have disappeared and remain missing. Each year, thousands of unidentified bodies are buried in the United States. While law enforcement officials are required to report unidentified bodies, they are not required to use the already established national repository for information that may have criminal investigation importance, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. In New York City alone, Mr. Speaker, over 4,000 unidentified persons are buried each year in mass graves in Potter's Field without NCIC references. The circumstances of this oversight are stark and real; thousands of unidentified bodies may be identified and long-awaited closure brought to their families across the United States through the usage of the NCIC. Many of these unidentified persons who are found dead or murdered were only children when they disappeared from their families. Those children may be alive or dead anywhere in this country. Federal legislation must be enacted swiftly in order to address the nature of this terrible situation. Mr. Speaker, in my home state of California, for instance, law enforcement officials are required to report unidentified bodies to the NCIC, but that is not enough for parents like Carl and JoAnn Rock because their son could be alive or dead in another state, even as far away as New York City's Potter's Field. Their tragic story demonstrates the need for comprehensive action, not a piece-meal solution. Last fall, JoAnn Rock and other families who have also lost their children came to ask the help of their Representatives as part of a group called Finding Our Children Under Stress (FOCUS). Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that they made their trip in vain. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support Jennifer's Law. It costs nothing but it gives in return the priceless gift of human compassion. This bill is a clear, obvious way to remedy a confusing and terrifying situation. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues the experience of the Rock family in their own words. It is my hope that this story will inspire each of you to act upon their behalf and the behalf of thousands of families still searching for their missing loved ones. I cannot begin to put into words my feelings, profound sadness and sense of loss as a result of the disappearance of our son, Robert. Bob was our son, our daughter Kristin's brother, a grandson, nephew, cousin and friend. All the people who know and love Rob have had their lives changed forever. Almost three years have passed with not a single piece of information about Rob's whereabouts. As a Magna Cum Laude graduate of NYU he had wonderful plans and a promising future. Stricken with schizophrenia in 1995, his life literally fell apart. A bout of hospitalizations, medications and depression left him and his family confused and anguished. On May 3, 1995 Rob left his home to get lunch downtown. He has never been seen or heard from since. We live in a suspended state, fearing the worst, dealing with false leads and dashed hopes, facing each day asking ``where is our son?'' When we reported to the Millbrae Police Department that Rob was missing, they were wonderful. Without hesitation they entered him into the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) system. Chief Parker has seen that the investigation goes on with special thanks to Officers Michael Grogin and Robb Lowe. ``3 Children'' of San Bruno, CA and Child Quest Int'l of San Jose were two agencies that reached out to help with a missing adult. There is no doubt that because of Rob's disappearance our level of awareness of the horrifying number of children and adults who are missing each year has changed dramatically. A child is reported missing every 40 seconds in this country. We don't even have statistics on missing adults. Rob was 26 and an at-risk adult because of being afflicted with schizophrenia. He is so bright and talented but this disease has robbed him of his ability to deal rationally with the world. He feels himself to be responsible for every ``evil'' thing that happens on earth. Can you imagine having to face each day knowing you caused the Oklahoma bombing, the earthquake in Osaka, the war in Bosnia. In his delusional state, Rob thinks his family is dead. We are very much alive and want to find our son. We found support and assistance immediately from other families of missing loved ones, and endless support from caring friends. Wanting to reach out to others I became involved as a founding member of a group called F.O.C.U.S. (Finding Our Children Under Stress). One of the first activities of our group came about when a horrifying bit of information surfaced related to one's search for a loved one. In this country we have a central repository of information available to law enforcement for listing missing and unidentified persons, the NCIC. Law enforcement must immediately list a missing child under the age of 18 into this system. Our population can easily move from state to state so this is so logical. However, states are not required to list adults nor are they required to report unidentified persons (alive or deceased) found in their jurisdiction, into this system. If our son died without any identification on him, has he been buried in a Potter's Field somewhere in this country, his identity forever lost? Mourning may never end, investigations may continue to go on, families grieve over cases that could be solved. As a result, under the encouragement of Congressman Lanto's office we have proposed federal legislation to rectify this, Jennifer's Law, HR 2850. In content simply--require states to report unidentified persons found in their jurisdiction into the NCIC in a prompt manner. Jennifer's Law would not only ease the suffering of families wanting to hear about missing loved ones, but could help solve other crimes as well. HR 2850 will ensure that no child or adult is buried as Jane or John Doe. It will assure that they keep their identities even into their deaths.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, President Clinton signed the documents completing United States ratification of the accession protocols for Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to become full- members of the NATO alliance. This is a historic occasion, Mr. Speaker, and one that places the United States firmly on the side of fostering democracy, security in Central Europe, and the creation of viable civil societies. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to President Clinton for playing a critical role in negotiating the agreements and winning the support of our other NATO allies for the admission of these three new countries to the alliance. His strong leadership at the Madrid Summit less than one year ago was crucial for this great victory. I also want to acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, the leadership of Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, who was responsible for carefully shepherding through the process of negotiating the admission of these three countries to NATO. She has also personally taken the lead in convincing the American people of the vital interest that the United States has in the admission of these countries. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remarks of President Clinton yesterday at the White House ceremony marking United Ratification of the accession protocols for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Repbulic. Remarks by the President on Ratification of NATO Enlargement The President. Thank you very much. I suppose I should begin with an apology for having to dash off and pick up the paper, but I would hate to lose this document after all the effort we put into getting to this point. (Laughter.) Mr. Vice President, thank you for your leadership on this issue. Senator Roth, Senator Biden, Secretary Albright, Secretary Cohen, General Ralston, Mr. Berger, to the ambassadors of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and the other members of the diplomatic corps who are here, to Senators Levin and Lieberman and Lugar, Mikulski, and Smith, I thank all of you so much. Let me say notwithstanding my good friend Senator Biden's overly generous remarks, we are here today because of the efforts of a lot of people who supported this effort: members of Congress and former members of Congress, present and former national security officials, present and former military leaders, representatives of our veterans, business unions, religious groups, ethnic communities. I especially thank Senators Lott and Daschle, Senators Helms and Biden, and you, Senator Roth, the chairman of our NATO observer group. You behaved in the great tradition of Truman and Marshall and Vandenberg, uniting our country across party for common values, common interests, and a common future. It's really amazing, isn't it, that Bill Roth and Joe Biden come from Delaware. I want you to know there is no truth to the rumor that I agreed to move the NATO headquarters to Wilmington in return for this vote. (Laughter.) However, it does say a lot for those small states that these two remarkable men have made such an indispensable contribution to this effort. I thank the other senators who are here for their passionate commitments. I'd also like to mention one other person, my advisor on NATO enlargement who managed the ratification process for the White House, Jeremy Rosner. Thank you, Jeremy. You did a great job, too, and we thank you. (Applause.) I see so many people here that--and I don't want to get into calling names, but I thank Mr. Brzezinski, Ambassador Kirkpatrick, General Joulwan and so many others who are here who have been a part of America's effort over the last 50 years to make sure that after World War II freedom triumphs. We learned at great cost in this century that if we wanted America to be secure at home we had to stand up for our interests, our ideals, and four friends around the world. Because of the alliances we've built and the work that our people have been able to do here, we near the end of this great century at a remarkable pinnacle of peace, with prosperity and declining social problems at home, and for the very first time ever a majority of the world's people living under governments of their own choosing. Since World War II, no alliance for freedom has been more important or enduring than NATO. And as we look ahead to the next 50 years, we have to imagine what the world will be like and what it is we expect to do and, in particular in this case, what about NATO. Today we welcome Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, finally erasing the boundary line the Cold War artificially imposed on the continent of Europe, strengthening an alliance that now, clearly, is better preserved to keep the peace and preserve our security into the 21st century. For the 16 of us already in NATO, enlarging our alliance will create three new allies ready to contribute troops and technology and ingenuity to protecting our territory, defending our security and pursuing our vital interest. The 60 million people who live in Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, they now know that what they build in peace they will be able to keep in security. And America now knows that we have new allies to help us meet the new security challenges of the 21st century--something that our partnership in Bosnia so clearly demonstrates. I would say also to the nations who have joined with us in the Partnership for Peace, and others who have considered doing so, and those who hope still someday to become NATO members, we are in the process of adapting this organization to the security challenges of the 21st century, and those who are with us in the Partnership for Peace, those who have been part of our endeavors in Bosnia, we appreciate you as well. We respect your aspirations for security; we share your devotion to your freedom; and we hope this is a day which you can celebrate as well. We come to this day, thanks to many acts of courage-- courage that toppled the Berlin Wall, ended the Cold War; the sacrifices by those who raised freedom's banner in Budapest in 1956, in Prague in 1968, in Gdansk in 1980; people like Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Arpad Goncz, so many others. The selfless investment of blood and treasure the American people made in freedom in the 20th century is also something we ought to stop and remember here today. There are so many people whose families gave so much in two world wars and the Cold War who should feel a personal sense of satisfaction and triumph because of this day. And I hope they do. As we look ahead to the 21st century, again I say, we have to see what we're doing in NATO in the larger context of preparing for a different era. Our goal is to help to build a Europe that is undivided, free, democratic, at peace, and secure; a Europe in which Russia, Ukraine, and other states of the former Soviet Union join with us to make common cause; a dynamic new Europe with partnership for commerce and cooperation. Therefore, we have supported the expansion of NATO and the Partnership for Peace. We have also supported all efforts at European integration and the expansion of European institutions to welcome new democracies. And we will continue to do so. We want to imagine a future in which our children will be much less likely to cross the Atlantic to fight and die in a war, but much more likely to find partners in security, in cultural and commercial and educational endeavors. The expansion of NATO and the Partnership for Peace make the positive outcome much more probable. This is a day for celebration, but also a day for looking ahead. Our work to adapt all our institutions to the challenges of the new century is far from done. On Monday I had the opportunity to go to Geneva to lay out a seven-point plan for the changes I believe the world trading system must embrace in order to fully and faithfully serve free people in the 21st century. And just very briefly before I close, let me mention the things that I believe we still have to do with NATO. We have to build closer ties with the Partnership for Peace members. We have to reinforce the practical cooperation between NATO and Russia, and NATO and Ukraine. We have to see through our efforts to secure a lasting peace in the Balkans, and we cannot walk away until the job is done. (Applause.) We must achieve deeper reductions in our nuclear forces and lower the limits on conventional arms across the European continent. Yes, we have more work to do, but for today, we remind the people of Europe that in the efforts that lie ahead, they can continue to count on the United States. And we remind the world that tomorrow, as yesterday, America will defend its values, protect its interests, and stand by its friends. So that years from now another generation may gather in this place and bask in the warm glow of liberty's light, because in our time we fulfilled America's eternal mission: to deepen the meaning of freedom, to widen the circle of opportunity, to strengthen the bonds of our union among ourselves and with others who believe in the primary importance of liberty and human dignity. Thank you and God bless you all.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to honor today an outstanding film, ``Miracle at Midnight,'' that appeared on ABC television's ``The Wonderful World of Disney'' on Sunday night, May 17. This moving drama, which was created by ABC, the Disney Company, and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, is a stirring description of the story of Danish courage during World War II. Other European nations, subdued by Nazi might, cowered at the feet of their conquerors and, in some cases, collaborated with them in their most despicable genocidal plans. The Danes stood firm against this affront to humanity, fighting back doggedly and bravely against German efforts to arrest Denmark's Jewish citizens. In a matter of hours, Danes of all religions and persuasions joined together to organize a rescue of miraculous success and unbelievable fortitude. The swiftness and daring of the rescue illustrated in ``Miracle at Midnight'' is so monumental that it is difficult to believe. In fact, the entire account is based on the true experience of the Danish people. On April 9, 1940, German tanks crossed the border into Denmark in an unprovoked attack upon a defenseless nation. As Nazi tanks rolled unhindered across the flat Jutland, the Danish government recognized the impossibility of resistance and surrendered within hours. As a reward for their initial passivity, the German occupiers allowed the Danes a modicum of freedom and a measure of civil life unparalleled under the Nazi yoke. Few untermenschen--``subhuman'' individuals of ``degenerate'' races--were molested by Gestapo thugs, and, for three years, life for most Danish citizens remained relatively unchanged. In 1943, however, this changed. Ambitious SS officers in Copenhagen, perversely envious of their mass-murdering colleagues in Eastern Europe, ordered the arrest of the city's Jewish population to coincide with Erev Rosh Hashanah, the night before the start of the Jewish New Year. Word leaked quickly to the Jewish community, and men and women who arrived for celebratory synagogue services were immediately sent home to hide their families from the Nazi onslaught. Non-Jewish families, among them Dr. and Mrs. Karl Koster (skillfully portrayed by Sam Waterston and Mia Farrow) and their two teenage children, risked their lives by opening their homes to Jewish friends and neighbors. Dr. Koster, a leading Copenhagen surgeon, courageously converted the hospital which he directed into a refuge. Similar acts of principled, silent bravery dotted the historic city, making the ``surprise'' Nazi roundup an unmitigated failure. Koster and his fellow protagonists soon realized that the Nazi thugs could not be evaded indefinitely, and they devised a plan to ferry their Jewish friends to neutral Sweden. Against seemingly hopeless odds, their efforts were rewarded. Through sheer good fortune and the wit, wisdom, and valor of the many Danish heroes, 7,000 Jews escaped to Sweden. Only a few fell into Nazi hands. Mr. Speaker, I cannot overemphasize the importance of studying the horrible illustrations of human brutality that mark the history of the Holocaust. I feel equally passionate about the need to study the causes of the widespread popular indifference to the Nazi crimes. But another type of example from these awful years must also be highlighted: the instances of uncompromising bravery that saved many men, women, and children from the gas chambers. The fortitude of Oskar Schindler was brilliantly recorded on film by Steven Spielberg in the epic ``Schindler's List.'' The moral fight of the outnumbered and outgunned Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto tied down pivotal German forces for six weeks and, more importantly, served notice to Hitler's henchmen that the Jewish people would fight the tyranny forced upon them. For me and my wife, the lesson of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish humanitarian who saved our lives and the lives of 100,000 Budapest Jews, is one that we never fail to teach our grandchildren. The sacrifices of the Danes must also never be forgotten, and the brilliantly constructed ``Miracle at Midnight'' helps to fulfill this vital mission. Mr. Speaker, the extraordinary film would not exist without the luminous talents and firm backing of many important participants. ``Miracle at Midnight'' is produced by Davis Entertainment in association with Walt Disney Television. John Davis and Merrill Karpf are the executive producers, with Morgan O'Sullivan as producer. Ken Cameron directed from a script by Chris Bryant and Monte Merrick. Waterston, the acclaimed star of ``The Killing Fields'' and television's ``Law and Order,'' joins Ms. Farrow, Justin Whalin, and numerous other brilliant artists in their magnificent acting performances. ``Miracle at Midnight'' displays for us all the beauty and justice of a people comparatively unburdened by the racial and religious hatreds that indelibly stamped the Holocaust. Preben Munch-Nielsen, then a teenager, took part in that historic rescue: ``We didn't recognize Jews as Jews, but as Danes. . . . The Jews . . . were victims of an insane movement created by lunatics. If you wanted to maintain your self- respect, you did what you could.'' This film is a wonderful lesson of tolerance, dignity, and selflessness. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending ``Miracle at Midnight'' and all those who contributed to its valuable historical lesson.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite my colleagues to join me in expressing our deepest sorrow at the devastating loss last month of Officer David John Chetcuti of the Millbrae, California, Police Department. Officer Chetcuti, who was only 43 years old, was killed on April 25 while aiding another officer during an exchange of gunfire with a heavily armed man. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our most sincere condolences to his wife Gail, his three sons--David, Jr., John, and Rickey--and their friends and family in Millbrae and throughout the Bay Area. All of us have been touched by Officer Chetcuti's generosity, service, duty and commitment to his community. Last month's tragedy hangs even more heavily in our hearts this week as we commemorate National Police Week. President Clinton's words proclaiming this solemn occasion ring especially true in reflecting upon Officer Chetcuti: ``This week a grateful Nation pauses to honor the more than half a million dedicated law enforcement officers across our country who put their lives on the line each day to protect us. These courageous and dedicated men and women daily wage the timeless battle for right over wrong, peace over conflict, and the rule of law over anarchy. . . . We lean heavily on this thin blue line, and it never breaks.'' Officer Chetcuti honored this truth every day of his life through his extraordinary commitment to protecting all of us. As Mike Parker, Chief of the Millbrae Police Department, so eloquently remarked, ``We lost Officer David J. Chetcuti when he was doing what he loved and did best, helping others.'' David John Chetcuti was born in San Francisco on March 5, 1955. He was the youngest of seven children born to John and Lily Chetcuti. Dave graduated from Capuchino High School in San Bruno, and later joined the Millbrae Police Department as a Reserve Police Officer in November, 1983. In April 1987, Dave was hired as a Deputy Sheriff with the Alameda County Sheriff's Department. He returned to the Millbrae Police Department in December, 1987, shortly after graduating from Alameda County's 91st Basic Academy. Throughout his distinguished eleven-year career, Officer Chetcuti consistently performed as an outstanding officer and leader in many different service capacities. In 1992, he was the first officer from the Millbrae Police Department to receive recognition for the highest number of drunk driving arrests during the ``Avoid the 23'' campaign. In 1995, he received the Department's Lifesaving Award for initiating CPR on a heart attack victim. Over the years, Officer Chetcuti received more than 33 written commendations and was named in countless news stories reporting arrests, investigations, and outstanding achievements. Mr. Speaker, 23 police officers have died in the line of duty in the history of San Mateo County, California. Behind each murder is a family grieving, a department devastated, and a community shaken. As we mourn Officer Chetcuti, and as we share our grief with his family, friends, and the people of Millbrae, I would like to pay tribute to these 22 brave men who preceded him in making the ultimate sacrifice for the safety and security of all of us. These 22 officers are: Hugo Olazar, California Highway Patrol (1989); Joel M. David, East Palo Alto Police (1988); George L. Garrett, Jr., Redwood City Police (1981); Ralph Percival, California Highway Patrol (1974); Gordon Joinville, San Mateo Police (1968); Richard J. Klass, Daly City Police (1966); Charles Manning, Broadmoor Police (1964); Dale Krings, California Highway Patrol (1962); William E. Pitois, California Highway Patrol (1960); John W. Lyle, Menlo Park Police (1960); Eugene A. Doran, Hillsborough Police (1959); William Moyle, South San Francisco Police (1953); James Dalziel, California Highway Patrol (1945); Forrest Gerken, California Highway Patrol (1944); Herman G. Fleishman, Redwood City Police (1939); Jack Doyle, Daly City Police (1936); Pierre J. Larrecou, Sheriffs' Department (1927); Albert D. Coturri, San Bruno Police (1924); Herbert W. Lampkin, Sheriff's Department (1924); Arthur G. Meehan, San Bruno Police (1924); William Phillip McEvoy, Sheriff's Department (1897); and George Washington Tallman, Sheriff's Department (1988). Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the courageous officers of the Millbrae Police Department and all other police officers across America who risk their lives every working day. As we mark National Police Week, let us all take a moment to honor them, and to remember Officer David J. Chetcuti and his selfless contributions to the people of Millbrae.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, no American Administration since the presidency of Harry Truman has been as supportive of Israel as has our current Administration. The President is personally engaged and committed to the safety and security of the state of Israel, and he has affirmed on many occasions--most recently in a letter I received from him dated May 5th--that our nation's unshakable support for Israel's security ``has been and will continue to be a central feature of the U.S.-Israeli relationship and a guiding principle for this Administration's role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.'' He noted that ``fighting terrorism is not optional; it is a basic premise of the peace process.'' Our distinguished Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, has personally played a critical role in working to move along the peace process, and she has devoted a great deal of time, effort, and energy to make meaningful progress. Our Secretary of State's personal intellectual and emotional commitment to move the peace process forward is one of the principal reasons for the progress that has been made. Mr. Speaker, in the past several days, there has been considerable heat, but little light on the status of negotiations and the role of the United States in that process. Secretary Albright yesterday spoke at the National Press Club on the ``Middle East Peace Process'' and outlined the framework and the focus of the Administration's policy in this regard. Mr. Speaker, because of the acrimony and misconceptions that have been magnified in the press, I think it is important for my colleagues to see for themselves first hand a concise and coherent discussion of our policy. I submit Secretary Albright's address at the National Press Club to be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to give thoughtful attention to her excellent remarks. The Middle East Peace Process (Delivered by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright at the National Press Club) Thank you very much. I am very pleased to be here. Two weeks ago, before departing for Asia and talks in London on the Middle East, I attended a dinner sponsored by Seeds of Peace. This is a group that brings young people together from all around the Middle East to learn about and from each other, to go beyond the stereotypes and to understand how much they have in common. At that dinner, I was given a letter signed by Arab and Israeli youngsters, which I hand-delivered in London to Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat. I want to begin my remarks today by quoting from that letter: ``In our history books, the Middle East has always appeared as a magnificent crossroads. Yet we have not tasted its grandness, for we are blinded by its destructive wars. We at Seeds of Peace had a taste of what it is like to co-exist peacefully. We learned to accept the fact that both sides, Arabs and Israelis, have a right to a home in this disputed holy land. We are writing this letter as people who have experienced peace temporarily and we enjoyed the taste, but we want the whole pie. However, this is up to you. It is up to you to shape or build our future.'' That is a part of the letter that I delivered. I would have liked very, very much to have been able to return to the United States this past weekend with the news that the prayers of those young people had been answered and that a new milestone in the Middle East peace process had been reached. It was our hope that this week would have marked the start of permanent status negotiations between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat, hosted by President Clinton. Unfortunately, despite exhaustive and exhausting efforts to remove them, there remain obstacles to an agreement that would allow those permanent status talks to begin. However, I look forward to meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu here in Washington tomorrow to see if it is possible to clear the way. Today, I want to do two things. First, on behalf of President Clinton, I want to reaffirm America's commitment to the pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace and our determination to continue exploring every possible avenue for helping the parties to achieve it. We do this because it is in our interest and because it is right. The people of the Middle East deserve a future free from terror and violence, a future in which they can prosper in security and peace. Second, I want to explain the logic of our approach and provide some perspective about what we have been doing in recent months to overcome the impasse that has developed in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The past year has been the most disappointing since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. It was 16 months ago that active US mediation helped to produce an agreement on Hebron. Since then, a crisis of confidence has arisen between Israelis and Palestinians that has stalled at the bargaining table and put at risk both historic accomplishments and future hopes. In only two years, we have gone from a situation where Israel had some form of peace negotiation, relationship, or promising contact with every Arab state except Iraq and Libya to a stalemate which has eroded regional cooperation on issues such as water, economic integration, the environment and refugees, stalled Arab-Israeli contacts, and caused optimism to be replaced by a sense of fatalism and helplessness about the future. At the root of the stalemate is a crisis of partnership between Israelis and Palestinians wherein short term tactical considerations have too often trumped broader understandings of common interest and cooperation. Indeed, we have gone from a situation where no problem was too big to solve to a situation where every issue is argued about. We have seen tragic incidents of terror, unilateral actions and provocation rhetoric undermine the historic accomplishments of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. For more than a year now, the United States has been working hard to revive the missing spirit of partnership. We have been trying literally to restore the ability of the parties to talk constructively with each other, to overcome mistrust, to solve problems, to arrive at agreements and to implement obligations. Early last year, we were approached by Prime Minister Netanyahu with an idea for reorienting the process. He argued that the confidence building period provided for under the Oslo Accords had begun instead to destroy confidence; and he was right. The Prime Minister argued that it therefore made sense to move directly into final status negotiations, and to do so on an accelerated timetable. He asked President Clinton to help achieve this purpose; and as Israel's ally and friend, the President decided to try to do so. Beginning last spring and throughout the summer of 1997, we sought an agreement that would put the process back on track by focusing the parties on the importance of getting to permanent status talks. In August I proposed in a speech here in Washington that the parties ``marry the incremental approach of the interim agreement . . . to an accelerated approach to permanent status.'' Then last September the Israelis and Palestinians agreed to a four-part agenda that included accelerated permanent status talks and three other issues: security with the emphasis on preempting and fighting terror; the further redeployment of Israeli troops; and a time-out on unhelpful unilateral steps. There followed several months of intensive discussions on that agenda along with resumed negotiations on key interim issues. During this period there was some narrowing in the differences between the parties, but very substantial gaps remained. Despite our efforts, we could not get the Israelis and Palestinians to agree to an accord. Both urged us, nevertheless, to persist and to help them find a way to bridge the differences. By early this year we had come to the conclusion that even if the parties could not be responsive to each other's ideas, they might respond to ours. Working closely and quietly with both sides, we began to share our views on how the parties might resolve their differences over the four-part agenda. In January, here in Washington, President Clinton met with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat. And I met with them when I traveled to the region in February, and then again in Europe in March. Ambassador Ross and Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have been in almost constant contact. Throughout, we continued to urge the parties to sort out the issues directly with each other. Unfortunately, none of these discussions produced sufficient results. It was clear that tough decisions were required if Israelis and Palestinians were to reach an agreement that neither side was prepared to make. Having worked since January to share our thoughts informally with the parties at the highest level, it was logical that we should at some point share a more fully integrated set of ideas in an effort to facilitate decisions. We took this step not because we wanted to, but because there seemed no other way to break the dangerous logjam that had developed. Our ideas stemmed from intensive consultations with both sides and take into account both the obligations each side has accepted and the vital interests each must protect. They are balanced, flexible, practical and reasonable. They are based on the principle of reciprocity--another concept stressed by Prime Minister Netanyahu and embraced by us because of our belief that parallel implementation of each side's obligations is the only way to restore the partnership between Israelis and Palestinians. In presenting our ideas, we made it clear that we were offering them as suggestions, not as an ultimatum or an effort to impose a settlement. Both parties have their own decision-making processes and interests, which we respect. Our purpose was only, in response to the parties' request, to help them find the way forward. The role of the mediator is never an easy one. The challenge is how to meet the needs of both sides in a way that is acceptable to the other. Logically, that presents both sides with the need to be flexible and to make decisions that reflect the concerns not just of one party, but of two. In this regard, our ideas were designed to find that balance and to persuade each side that the balance could be struck in a way that addressed their particular requirements. Now, let me try to explain our approach as it relates to addressing Israel's requirements, foremost of which is security. Let me say at the outset that there should be no doubt about the commitment of the Clinton Administration or of America to Israel's security. That commitment is unshakable and has been demonstrated over and over again, not only in words but in actions; in our joint struggle against terrorism; in the assistance to Israel that the American people have so long and so generously provided; and in the steps we have taken to ensure Israel's qualitative military edge. These include providing Israel with the F-15-I, the most advanced fighter aircraft in the American arsenal; the pre- positioning of American military stock and material in Israel for joint use; and jointly-funded research and development projects designed to enhance Israel's ability to protect itself against long range missiles and Katyusha rockets. And let me add that our to Israel's security does not come with a time limit. There is no expiration date. It will continue today, tomorrow and for as long as the sun shall rise. I said that in Israel last year and I meant it. And that's true whether there is progress in the Middle East peace process or not--or whether we have differences with Israel at a particular moment or not. At the same time, we have agreed with Israeli leaders from Prime Minister Ben Gurion to Begin and from Rabin to Netanyahu that the key to long term security for the Israeli people lies in lasting peace. That is why we have been working so hard to resolve the present impasse. In so doing, we would not for a minute assert for ourselves that right to determine Israel's security needs. That is--and must remain-- an Israeli prerogative. Moreover, both in our ideas and in the way we presented them, we took fully into account Israeli concerns both about process and substance. For example, we have given the parties many weeks to consider our ideas in private. We did not launch a public campaign on their behalf. And in response primarily to Israeli requests, we allowed more time and then more time and then more time for our suggestions to be studied, considered and discussed. Moreover, the ideas we presented posed some very difficult choices for the Palestinians. They were required to make substantial changes in their negotiating position. Nevertheless, Chairman Arafat agreed to our ideas in principle. The real centerpiece of our efforts to address Israeli requirements focused on dealing with Israel's fundamental and legitimate security concerns. It was no coincidence that security was the first point on our four-point agenda. Creating the right environment for negotiations had as its focus the issue of ensuring that Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation was functioning at 100 percent, and that Palestinians were exerting 100 percent effort to take effective unilateral steps against terror. That's why our ideas on security create a structure to ensure that the fight against terror will not be episodic, but that it endures. From the beginning, we have made the security issue the center of our dialogue with the Palestinians. We have pressed them to understand that the fight against terror is a basic Palestinian interest. And what we have seen, especially over the past several months, is a concerted Palestinian effort-- even in the absence of an agreement with Israel on the four- part agenda--against those who would threaten peace with terror and violence. The Palestinian Authority deserves credit for taking on such groups, but it is essential as they do that others in the region who tell us they support peace refrain from greeting with cordial hospitality and financial backing the enemies of peace. Our suggestions for Israeli redeployments were also formulated with Israel's prerogatives and concerns in mind. We recognize, as reflected in the Christopher letter, that further redeployment is an Israeli responsibility under Oslo, rather than an issue to be negotiated. But it is in the nature of partnership that Israel should take Palestinian concerns into account, while following the terms of its agreement. Otherwise, the peace process cannot move forward. In presenting our ideas, we did not define the areas from which Israel should redeploy. Our ideas placed a premium on Israel retaining overall security responsibility in the areas affected by the proposed redeployment. And our suggestion about the size of the next redeployment came down far closer to Israel's position than to that of the Palestinians. Why did we suggest a size? Because that is the only way to reach the agreement on launching permanent status talks that Prime Minister Netanyahu asked us to achieve. In presenting and discussing our ideas, we have acted with discretion and patience. Because we realize the difficulty of the decisions the parties were being asked to make, we have gone the extra mile--in fact, the extra 20,000 miles, back and forth across the Atlantic many times. And we have done so without complaint, because America will always go the extra mile for peace. I want to mention at this point also that America's commitment to peace and security in the Middle East has historically been a bipartisan commitment, stretching from the administrations of Truman and Eisenhower to Bush and Clinton, Because that commitment involves the security of a cherished ally and the vital strategic interests of the United States, our leaders have historically stood together in support of Israel, and shoulder to shoulder with our Arab friends in pursuit of peace. If America is to play its proper role in promoting stability in the Middle East, it is imperative that our leaders now--in the Executive Branch, in Congress, and within the Jewish-American and Arab-American communities--continue to work together on behalf of shared goals. Tomorrow, I will meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu again, and I very much look forward to the meeting. We are working hard to overcome differences an I hope we will be able to make progress. But the key point that I have been emphasizing to both Israeli and Palestinian leaders is that although America remains committed to the pursuit of peace, it is up to them-- not to us--whether peace is achieved. Over the past months, we have played the role of mediator, counselor, friend, shuttler, cajoler and idea-maker. We have responded whenever called at literally any time of the day or night. We have done this because we care about Israel and its people; and we care about the Palestinians and Arabs; and we care about the future peace and stability of the region. We are not giving any ultimatums, and we're not threatening any country's security. We are not trying to make any party suffer at the expense of another. All we are trying to do is find the path to peace, as the parties have repeatedly urged us to do. And what we have especially been trying to do in recent weeks is to issue a wake-up call. The leaders of the region have reached a crossroads. Act before it is too late. Decide before the peace process collapses. And understand that in a neighborhood as tough as the Middle East, there is no security from hard choices, and no lasting security without hard choices. The parties must understand, as well, that there is urgency to this task. For time is no longer an ally of this process; it has become an adversary. The historic accomplishments that flowed from the Oslo process represented a strategic opportunity for peace that is now being put at risk. Consider that just two years ago, at Sharm al-Sheikh, representatives from Israel and a host of Arab states gathered at the Summit of the Peacemakers to say no to terror and yes to peace. They saw Israel as a partner. Unfortunately, that exhilarating sense of partnership has been lost. Second, the very idea that negotiations can peacefully resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict is now under threat. Unless the leaders are willing to make hard choices, the field will be left to extremists who have no interest in peace. Third, the clock continues to tick. The interim period under Oslo concludes on May 4, 1999--less than a year from now. Those who believe that drifting is acceptable, or who believe they can declare unilateral positions or take unilateral acts when the interim period ends, are courting disaster. Both sides must understand that the issues reserved for permanent status discussions--including the status of the West Bank and Gaza and of settlements--can only be settled by negotiation. That was the spirit and logic of Oslo. America's interest and goal is a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, including the principle of land for peace. That will require decisive progress on all tracks, including the Israel-Lebanon track and the Israel-Syria track. We are not a party to the negotiations. As President Clinton has repeatedly emphasized, it is not our right, nor our intention, nor is it within our capacity, to dictate terms or impose a settlement. At the same time, our credibility and interests are indeed affected by what the Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs do or fail to do. We are prepared to support their efforts as long as we judge they are serious about wanting to reach an agreement--and serious enough to make the decisions necessary to achieve it. For too long, too many children in too many parts of the Middle East have grown up amidst violence, deprivation and fear. Too many lives have been cut short by the terrorist's bomb, the enemy's shell and the assassin's bullet. Too many opportunities have been lost to heal old wounds, narrow differences and transform destructive conflict into constructive cooperation. Everyone with a stake in the Middle East has an obligation to do what can be done to seize the strategic opportunity for peace that now exists, and thereby to make possible a future of stability and prosperity for all the people of the region. The United States believes this kind of future is within our grasp. But the peoples of the region will not realize that future if their leaders do not reach out with a vision as great as the goal to overcome past grievances, treat neighbors as partners and undertake in good faith the hard work of cooperation and peace. All that is required is for each to accord dignity and accept responsibility, and to act not out of passion and fear, but out of reason and hope. For the peoples of the region who have suffered too long, the path out of the wilderness is uphill, but clearly marked. The time has come now, before the dusk obscures the guideposts, to move up that road; and by so doing, to answer the too-long denied prayers of the children--all the children--of the Middle East. Thank you very much.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, in just a few days President Clinton will be in Berlin to mark the 50th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift. Just last week, I joined a number of my colleagues in preparing a CARE package to mark this anniversary. These CARE packages will be sent to Berlin for the 50th anniversary celebrations of the airlift, and then they will be shipped on to Afghanistan to provide assistance to the Afghani people who have been devastated by twenty years of war and turmoil. Mr. Speaker, it is particularly appropriate that we remember and reflect upon the Berlin Airlift and the significance of that event in United States foreign policy as we mark the half century anniversary of this event. It was one of the most critical steps in defining the American response to the Soviet Union and in establishing the parameters of United States policy in the Cold War. All of us are familiar with the story of the Berlin Airlift. In the spring of 1948, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin began a campaign to force the Western Allies from the occupied city of Berlin, which was isolated inside East Germany, some 150 miles behind the Iron Curtain. In a concerted effort to consolidate his hold over all of Central and Eastern Europe, he pressed to eliminate this island of democracy inside the Soviet occupation zone. Mr. Speaker, as the occupation of Germany began at the end of World War II, the United States, Britain and France had negotiated air corridors to fly over the Soviet zone in order to reach their sectors of occupied Berlin. Negotiations on land access via autobahn, railroad, and barge were begun but never completed because of the deterioration of relations with the Soviet Union. On June 11, 1948, Soviet military authorities halted Allied and German freight traffic to Berlin for two days. This was the beginning of a campaign of harassment and bullying that continued for the next two weeks. On June 18, the three Western Allies--the United States, Britain, and France--announced the establishment of a critically important currency reform that paved the way for Germany's post-war economic recovery. Soviet authorities protested the currency reform and announced that they would not participate. On June 22, following a meeting of the four occupying powers, Soviet authorities announced that they would proceed with a separate currency reform in their own zone of occupation. The Western Allies reaffirmed their intention to proceed with their planned reform. On June 24, 1948, Soviet military authorities enforced a complete prohibition of all ground transportation to and from the western sectors of Berlin--freight and passenger by highway, railroad, and water. The following day, June 25, Soviet authorities served notice that they would not supply food to the Western occupation zones of the city. That very day, the first eight British Royal Air Force aircraft arrived in the British sector of Berlin to commence airlift operations. The Berlin airlift formally began on June 26 with 22 flights of United States C-47 aircraft carrying 80 tons of supplies from Wiesbaden in the U.S. occupation zone to Berlin's Tempelhof airfield. Mr. Speaker, over the next 320 days--until May 12, 1949, when Soviet authorities reopened ground routes to Berlin--the United States and Great Britain carried out a massive airlift bringing in all of the food and other supplies necessary to maintain the 2.1 million people living in the Western Allied occupation zones of Berlin. The effort was truly remarkable. By February of 1949 the U.S. Air Force and the Royal Air Force were delivering nearly 8,000 tons daily-- the equivalent of 530 German rail carloads of supplies. All kinds of commodities were transported to the city in order to maintain the health and well-being of its citizens. Two-thirds of the material carried to Berlin was coal--the fuel necessary to maintain the western zones of the city. Less than one-third of the material carried to Berlin was food--slightly more than one pound per person per day, which provided the West Berliners with a nourishing, though monotonous, diet. Some 7 percent of the total goods transported were industrial raw materials, in order to maintain the economy of the city, liquid fuel, and other items. Mr. Speaker, the cost of operating the airlift was high for all involved. West Berliners suffered to maintain their freedom. Their privation was real. Despite the airlift, food and fuel was scarce. Unemployment rose steadily throughout the period of the airlift because industries did not have sufficient fuel and raw materials to maintain their operations. The American and the British people paid an estimated $200 million to operate the airlift over the 320 days that it functioned. Considering the massive scale of the operation, it was remarkably safe. Nevertheless, 76 people died in airlift operations, including 31 American servicemen. The airlift was an example of one of the finest efforts of the United States military forces. The logistics requirements were extraordinary. Aircraft had to be gathered from American bases around the world, pilots had to be trained, ground crews coordinated. The Tempelhof airfield in Berlin was inadequate to the task, and it had to be expanded and rebuilt at the same time that aircraft were using the runways around the clock. Throughout this massive effort American and British military forces worked side by side. General George C. Marshall served as our Secretary of State at the time of the Berlin Airlift, and he played a critical role in the decision to establish the airlift. Robert H. Ferrell, in his biography of General Marshall, put the importance of the Berlin Airlift in context: The City [of Berlin] was a symbol of the division of Germany. Its continued independence . . . gave evidence of the will power of the Western nations on the whole German question and even more: if Berlin went completely to the Russians, all Germany could follow, and such a procession of calamities might collapse Western Europe. Mr. Speaker, the Berlin Airlift was a critical event that helped to cement the friendship of the American and the German people following World War II. In 1994, then Secretary of State Warren Christopher told a German audience at the Berlin Airlift memorial at Tempelhof Airport: Americans remember the airlift as the bridge that joined us as kindred nations, prepared to stand firm in defiance of tyranny, prepared to endure hardship in defense of liberty. This legacy outlasted the airlift, the division of Germany and, ultimately, the Cold War itself. The Berlin Airlift was a critical step in establishing the United States response to the Soviet Union at the critical opening stage of the Cold War. President Harry S. Truman, who directed that the airlift be established when Soviet forces attempted to isolate and engulf Berlin, established the fundamental U.S. posture--a firm but measured response to efforts to extend Soviet authority. As we look back from the perspective of half a century, Mr. Speaker, President Truman and his outstanding Secretary of State, General George C. Marshall, were responsible for setting United States policy toward the Soviet Union. That policy was followed by every President and Secretary of State--both Republican and Democratic--for the next forty years. When we applaud the fall of the Berlin Wall and the opening of the iron curtain, Mr. Speaker, it is Harry Truman whom we must thank. He did not live to see the triumph of the wise policies that he set in place, but we as Americans are now living in a new and safer world that was shaped and largely brought about through the genius and foresight of Harry Truman and George C. Marshall. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in commemorating one of the critical events of this century--the 50th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift.