Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Jason Chih-chiang Hu, the distinguished representative of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States. As my colleagues know, Ambassador Hu has served as the chief representative of the Republic of China on Taiwan here in the United States for the past 15 months. During that time, the friendship between our two countries has benefitted greatly from Jason Hu's outstanding efforts. Although Jason will be leaving Washington, DC, we are fortunate that he will continue to work for better relations between the United States and Taiwan. He will return to Taipei within the next few weeks to assume the critically important position of foreign minister. Dr. Jason Hu's record of distinguished public service to his nation spans more than a decade. He received his B.L. in diplomacy from the National Chengchi University in Taiwan, and his Ph.D. in International Studies at Oxford University. Jason began his career as a university professor, and he later served as the government's chief spokesman. Since June of 1996 he has been the chief representative to the United States. We will miss Jason's wisdom and his articulate and informed advocacy for Taiwan. Jason's lovely and charming wife, Shirley, will also be missed. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, this is a wonderful opportunity for Jason and Shirley to serve their country in a new and challenging position. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in wishing them bon voyage and great success as they face the new challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me today in commending Ms. Erin Roxane Chew, a senior at Mercy High School in San Francisco and the recipient of the Congressional Youth Excellence Award in the 12th Congressional District of California. Erin Chew's scholastic achievements are impressive indeed. She has maintained a high grade-point average while undertaking a challenging class schedule. She has supplemented her regular high school courses by taking a variety of honors and advanced placement courses. Her academic awards include numerous appearances on the principal's honor roll. Ms. Chew has also been recognized in the ``Who's Who of American High School Students.'' In addition to her outstanding academic record, Erin has a remarkable record of community service. As her teacher, Carole Turner, said, Erin is constantly inquiring: ``Do you have any work for me to do?'' ``I'd like to see us do a service project to help people outside of school that would get some of our more quiet kids involved.'' She has volunteered at the Donaldina Cameron House as a day camp leader for children in San Francisco's Chinatown. In Mercy High School, she is active with the California Scholarship Foundation, the National Honor Society, and the Service Club. She is also a teaching assistant in the Math Department, working with incoming freshmen. Erin plans to attend the University of California, Berkeley next fall where she intends to major in computer science. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in commending Ms. Erin Roxane Chew for her outstanding service to the community and in congratulating her outstanding achievements.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I call to the attention of the House a resolution which I have introduced with a number of our distinguished colleagues--House Resolution 246 which denounces and rejects a resolution adopted by the Foreign Ministers of the Arab League urging the easing of U.N. sanctions against Libya. Those sanctions were imposed, Mr. Speaker, because of Libya's refusal to surrender individuals on its territory who are wanted in connection with the 1988 terrorist bombing of PanAm flight 103. In view of the action by the Arab League last week, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we reaffirm our commitment to the U.N. sanctions against the renegade Government of Libya. The resolution adopted by Arab League leaders last week in Cairo is an outrageous effort to weaken multilateral international sanctions against the renegade rogue regime in Libya. The government of Muammar el-Kaddafi has been one of the principal supporters of international terrorism. It is vital that we in the U.S. Congress make clear to these Arab countries our unequivocal rejection of their ill-conceived and counterproductive statement. At the Cairo Conference of Arab League Foreign Ministers on September 21, the Ministers adopted a resolution calling for: ``Arab countries to undertake measures to ease the severity of the embargo imposed on Libya until a final, peaceful, and just solution to the crisis is reached;'' ``to lift measures freezing Libyan accounts involving money, the source of which is other than the selling or exporting of oil''; ``to support Libya's right to obtain suitable compensation for human and material damages and losses it sustains as a result of pertinent U.N. Security Council resolutions''; and to exempt from sanctions Libyan ``flights related to participation of the Libyan political leadership and official delegations in regional and international meetings.'' Mr. Speaker, sanctions were imposed against Libya by the U.N. Security Council for the failure of the Government of Libya to turn over to United States or British authorities two individuals living on its territory who have been directly implicated in the bombing of PanAm flight 103. That aircraft was destroyed by a terrorist bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1989. In that terrorist attack, 270 innocent people from 30 countries, including many from the United States, died. The Libyan Government has also refused to turn over to French authorities individuals directly implicated in the bombing of French ATA flight 772 over Niger in 1988 in which some 160 individuals lost their lives. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution. I also ask, Mr. Speaker, that the text of this resolution be printed in the Record. H. Res. 246 Whereas the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 748 on March 31, 1992, imposing an embargo on the sale of arms and on international flights against the state of Libya and in Security Council Resolution 883 on November 11, 1993, further tightened economic sanctions against Libya for its refusal to surrender individuals suspected in connection with the terrorist bombing in 1988 of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 individuals were killed and the terrorist bombing in 1989 of the French ATA Flight 772 over Niger, in which 160 individuals were killed; Whereas the Security Council had repeatedly voted to maintain these international sanctions against Libya in view of the persistent refusal of the government of Libya to hand over for trial the two individuals currently in Libya who are accused of involvement in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and ATA Flight 772; Whereas the United Nations sanctions provide for legitimate humanitarian flights to and from Libya for medical and other reasons, and flights of a religious nature to permit Libyan residents to participate in the Hadj have been approved routinely under the United Nations sanctions; Whereas Libya has repeatedly violated the United Nations sanctions, most egregiously when an aircraft carrying Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar el-Kaddafi, landed in Cairo, Egypt, in July 1996 in order for the Libyan leader to participate in an Arab summit meeting; and Whereas the foreign ministers of the Arab League meeting in Cairo on September 21, 1997, adopted a resolution in which the ministers invited ``Arab countries to undertake measures to ease the severity of the embargo imposed on Libya until a final, peaceful, and just solution to the crisis is reached,'' ``to lift measures freezing Libyan accounts involving money, the source of which is other than the selling or exporting of oil,'' ``to support Libya's right to obtain suitable compensation for human and material damages and losses it sustains as a result of pertinent United Nations Security Council resolutions,'' and to exempt from sanctions Libyan ``flights related to participation of the Libyan political leadership and official designations in regional and international meetings'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) denounces and rejects in the strongest terms the resolution adopted on September 21, 1997, by the foreign minister of the Arab League in their conference in Cairo which invites Arab states to take action to ease United Nations sanctions against Libya; (2) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to support United Nations sanctions against Libya until the two individuals suspected in connection with the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772 are turned over to appropriate judicial authorities in the United States or the United Kingdom and France as required by United Nations Security Council resolutions; (3) calls upon the President to suspend all U.S. assistance to all countries which violate United Nations Security Council sanctions against Libya; and (4) requests that the Secretary of State transmit a copy of this resolution to the government of each country which is a member of the Arab League and express to each government the profound concern of the United States about efforts to undermine the international fight against terrorism by weakening or violating sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, in my decades of watching and working on Capitol Hill, I have never met a public servant of greater integrity and dedication than the Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs, Stuart Eizenstat. Recent criticism involving him has prompted me to undertake an in depth review and analysis of his earlier private-sector work in the airline industry. My inquiry has only confirmed my unequivocal and carefully considered view of Mr. Eizenstat as a public servant of the highest integrity and impeccable action. I profoundly deplore the absolutely unfounded accusations that have been made against him by special interests, who have a vested interest in an outcome contrary to the carefully considered and appropriate policy being pursued by the United States Government. It would appear that these interests are cynically using this totally unjustified and false criticism of this outstanding public servant in an effort to achieve their objectives through sleaze, innuendo, and falsehood. I specifically wish to place in the public record the following information about Under Secretary Eizenstat in order to clarify this situation. First, prior to his confirmation as U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, Ambassador Eizenstat listed over 30 clients with whom he would have no contact for a 1-year period. Ethics regulations require than an official recuse himself for 1 year from matters in which a former client is a party if the official believes that an appearance of a conflict would otherwise result. At the request of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Ambassador Eizenstat went even further. Because he had represented British Airways with respect to the USAir merger, he agreed not to participate in official matters involving this merger for the duration of his appointment as Ambassador and to consider carefully whether to participate in other issues involving British Airways, if any should arise. He fully honored this extensive commitment. Second, after serving for over 2\1/2\ years as Ambassador to the European Union, he has twice been confirmed by the U.S. Senate, once in early 1996 as Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade and again in the spring of this year as Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs. In neither instance was he asked to limit further contact with British Airways or with any of his former clients. Indeed, he could not do his job in either position if he were required to recuse himself indefinitely from all matters involving his former clients. Third, in his meeting with EU Commissioner Van Miert, he did not seek approval of the American Airlines-British Airways alliance. Rather, he presented a position of the State Department he himself had not participated in even developing. Instead he merely expressed concern that the European Union, in its consideration of the proposed alliance, not impose anticompetitive conditions which would complicate an Open Skies agreement with the United Kingdom. He never talked with anyone from the Department of Transportation. Fourth, more than 4 years after having any representation of British Airways, having had no financial interest in his former law firm's representation of British Airways, having had no contact with British Airways in any official capacity even to this day, and conforming to the letter and spirit of the ethics requirements, he has continued to act, as he has throughout his public career, with the highest ethical standards. Indeed, he continues meeting the highest standards and has now decided to go beyond anything required and recuse himself from further involvement on this issue until DOT makes its administrative finding. Fifth, this is confirmed by the following statement which was approved by the highest ethics official in the State Department: Under Secretary Eizenstat's recent discussions with EU officials regarding the British Airways-American Airlines alliance were fully consistent with Government ethical guidelines and regulations. No law or regulation requires recusal in this case. Government ethics rules require that an official not participate in a matter only in two instances: when the official has a financial interest in the matter or when the matter involves in certain cases a former client whom the official represented within the last year. Neither instance applies here: Under Secretary Eizenstat does not have a financial interest in this matter; he last represented British Airways 4 year ago. Under Secretary Eizenstat's 1993 statement of recusal on British Airways, referred to in the JOC [Journal of Commerce] article, resulted from his representation of the British Airways on a matter unrelated to the AA/BA [American Airlines/British Airways] alliance. The recusal was limited to the period when he served as U.S. Ambassador to the EU, a position that he no longer holds. Neither the law, the Congress, nor Government ethics officials required that he continue this recusal when he assumed his present position as Under Secretary. His current recusal provides as follows: ``Finally, I will recuse myself from participation on a case-by-case basis in any particular matter in which, in my judgment, it is desirable for me to do so in order to avoid the possible appearance of impropriety, despite the lack of any actual conflict.'' Both Under Secretary Eizenstat and Department ethics officials have believed that the Under Secretary need not recuse himself under this provision from discussions with the EU on the AA/BA alliance because 4 years have passed since he represented BA and because his representation of BA was on a different issue than the pending area.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support and pay tribute to the thousands of people who will be participating in the National Day of Conscience To End Child Labor and Sweatshop Abuses. On Saturday, October 4, 1997, people across our Nation and across the globe will join in a call to end child labor and sweatshops and to kick off the Holiday Shopping Season of Conscience. As part of a 3-month national and international mobilization beginning on Saturday, October 4, 1997, thousands of organizations across our country will participate in vigils, rallies, walks for conscience, signing petitions, distributing of leaflets, demonstrations, and services. The National Day of Conscience will inaugurate the Holiday Shopping Season of Conscience--a national movement to encourage consumers to reward companies which turn away from sweatshops and labor exploitation and penalize those which continue to violate human rights. Many people assume that the exploitation of children and the existence of sweatshops is a problem only in poorer countries or that it is a problem which does not exist in this country any longer. But many workers here in the United States still labor under exploitative conditions--long hours, subminimum wages, unsafe workplaces, and violations of child labor. It will surprise many to learn that the United States ranks first among affluent nations in the rate of injury and death to working minors. Annually there are over 200,000 injuries of children and young people in our Nation's workplaces and 100 deaths among our working youth. In agriculture, 23,500 children are injured each year and more than 300 children die each year working in the fields. We cannot continue to allow our children's lives to be risked in hazardous, dangerous, or illegal work. It will also surprise many to learn that sweatshops have returned in the United States in numbers and forms that are similar to the deplorable conditions that existed at the turn of the century. In 1995, American were shocked when investigators exposed the slave-like conditions of garment workers in El Monte, CA. Who can forget the young female immigrants from Thailand who were enslaved and forced to live in a compound encircled by razor wire? These women were forced to work 20- hour days in deplorable slave-like conditions for as little as $1 per hour. The El Monte sweatshop, it was later revealed, made apparel for some of this country's top fashion labels. Mr. Speaker, the El Monte case unfortunately is not an isolated instance. The GAO recently reported that 2,000 of 6,000 garment shops in New York City and most of the 5,000 shops in Los Angeles operate in violation of minimum wage, overtime, or child labor laws. The National Day of Conscience and the Holiday Shopping Season of Conscience are an effort to make consumers aware of companies which are the worst sweatshop and child labor violators. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that Americans knowingly purchase products made by children or by a worker who is forced to work under harsh and degrading sweatshop conditions. The great value of the National Day of Conscience and the Holiday Season of Conscience is that through wide participation and education consumers can be encouraged to avoid purchasing goods produced in sweatshops and by illegal child labor, and we can bring about an end to sweatshops and exploitation of our children. Mr. Speaker, we can do much more to make our Nation's children's lives safer and more secure as they enter the work force. My good friend and colleague, Tom Campbell, along with another 38 of our colleagues, have joined together in supporting comprehensive domestic child labor law reform. This legislation, H.R. 1870, the Young American Workers' Bill of Rights Act, sets new minimum standards for protecting children in the workplace and assuring time for academic achievement during the school year, while still allowing for beneficial work experience. Mr. Speaker, this weekend will mark the beginning of a significant mobilization by consumers and grassroots organizations to end sweatshop abuses and child labor both here and abroad. It is my hope that we in the Congress will mobilize support here in the Congress to enact legislation which will ensure that the job opportunities for our youth are meaningful, safe, and healthy.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I call the attention of my colleagues to an excellent address given earlier this month in Budapest, Hungary, at the opening of an exhibit on the Life and Work of Varian Fry by Mr. Reynold Levy, the new President of the International Rescue Committee. I am asking that Mr. Levy's address be placed in the Record. Mr. Speaker, on July 1st of this year, Mr. Levy assumed the position of President of the International Rescue Committee (IRC). This organization was founded over half a century ago by a number of distinguished Americans in an effort to help mitigate the tragedy of dislocation and destruction which accompanied World War II. Since its founding the IRC has been one of the leading organizations in the world in helping to deal with the problem of refugees and those seeking political asylum, and the organization has been a major provider of and advocate for humanitarian assistance. It is most appropriate that one of the first public responsibilities of Mr. Levy as the new president of the IRC was to speak at an exhibit honoring the activities of Varian Fry. Mr. Fry was designated by the IRC to go to France in 1940 in an effort supported by the United States government to bring to the United States 200 prominent Jewish intellectuals--writers, scientists, academics, journalists, historians, musicians, opposition political leaders, and others--who were in southern France, having fled the advancing Nazi forces and were seeking to escape. In recognition of Varian Fry's outstanding efforts in Europe in 1940 with the IRC, he is the only American who has received the honor ``Righteous Among the Nations'' from Yad Vashem, the Israeli memorial to Holocaust victims, for risking his own life to save the lives of Jews during the Holocaust. Mr. Levy is a graduate of Hobart College, and he holds a Ph.D. in government and foreign affairs from the University of Virginia and a degree in law from Columbia University. His distinguished career includes a period of service as Executive Director of the 92nd Street Y, a leading cultural, educational and social service institution on Manhattan's upper east side. He later was a senior officer of AT&T Corporation, serving first as founder and chief executive officer of the AT&T Foundation, and later as Corporate Vice President, and Managing Director of International Public Affairs. After leaving his position at AT&T, he spent a nine-month sabbatical writing two books-- one on the exercise of corporate and social responsibility and the other on what he sees as a renaissance in American philanthropy. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Mr. Levy's address at the opening of the exhibit in Budapest, Hungary, on the Life and Work of Varian Fry be placed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the thoughts of Reynold Levy, a distinguished American philanthropist and humanitarian. Remarks of Reynold Levy Congressman Lantos and Mrs. Lantos, Ambassador and Mrs. Blinken, distinguished guests. As President of the International Rescue Committee, I'd like to accomplish two objectives with some brief remarks. My first objective is to explain why it is important to remember Varian Fry's life and work. A very distinguished Board member colleague of Congressman Lantos and Mrs. Blinken, Elie Wiesel, explains the matter definitively in this passage from his book All Rivers to the Sea. ``Memory is a passion no less powerful or pervasive than love. What does it mean to remember? It is to live in more than one world, to prevent the past from fading and to call up the future to illuminate it. It is to revive fragments of existence, to rescue lost beings, to cast light on faces and events and to drive back the sands that cover the surface of things, to combat oblivion and to reject death.'' In recognizing Varian Fry we ``Rescue a lost being . . . and drive back the sands that cover the surface of things.'' My second objective is to offer a perspective on Fry's legacy. For his heroic work and that of the Emergency Rescue Committee did not end with his expulsion from France in 1941. It continues to this day through the ERC's successor organization, the International Rescue Committee. It has, to its credit, over 56 years of unbroken service to refugees and victims of oppression. With the end of World War II and the defeat of fascism, the IRC assisted hundreds of thousands of displaced persons in Europe to re-build their shattered lives. Many came to the United States and were helped by the IRC to resettle and to become self-sufficient citizens in their new country. The Iron Curtain that fell across Europe after the war produced a whole new set of refugees--those fleeing Stalin's dictatorship in the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe that had fallen under communist domination, not least the wonderful country of Hungary. The IRC, following in the steps of Varian Fry, was there to rescue them in flight, including, of course, tens of thousands of Hungarians. Since the fall of the Berlin wall, the IRC has been involved in every major refugee crisis up to this day--making it the largest non-sectarian refugee relief organization in the world. Rescue teams are now at work in Bosnia, in Rwanda, in Cambodia and in 20 more countries, bringing life-saving humanitarian aid, medical care, shelter and education to well over a million refugees. In addition, the IRC continues to resettle large numbers of political refugees coming to the United States. And, the IRC remains a strong voice advocating for refugees, their rights and their needs. This, then is a powerful legacy of Varian Fry. His heroic exploits are the inspiration for the International Rescue Committee in its world-wide efforts to bring help, aid and comfort to the world's refugees. His light, which shone so dimly in the Hotel Splendide and on the rue Grignan, shines brightly today, relieving human suffering and providing refuge to so many who seek freedom and protection from a well-founded fear of persecution. I thank you for being here today to pay tribute to a selfless hero whose rescue of endangered lives inspires so many of my colleagues at the International Rescue Committee. Each of us endeavors to honor in our work his resourcefulness, courage and fortitude.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, as conferees representing the House and Senate go to conference to resolve differences between each Chamber's version of the Interior appropriations bill, I urge my colleagues on the conference committee to put an end to the use of taxpayer subsidies for the construction of logging roads in our national forests. The Federal Government spends millions of dollars each year subsidizing the construction of logging roads in our national forests. These roads' only purpose is to allow loggers to cut more trees. It is time to end this fiscally wasteful and environmentally destructive subsidy of the timber industry. Our national forests represent a major portion of some of the last remaining untouched forest in this country. Regrettably, the U.S. Forest Service continues to spend $90 million each year to build logging roads deep into these forests so that timber companies can chop down these precious resources. These needless corporate subsidies also carry with them very detrimental environmental consequences. I know of absolutely no reason why we should continue the construction of these roads. Logging roads cut through precious habitats of fish and wildlife, including many threatened and endangered species. The construction of these roads has had a devastating impact upon habitat, water quality, and wildlife population. Road construction has also increased the risk of landslides, erosion, and siltation of streams. In July, the House voted on the Porter-Kennedy amendment to the Interior Appropriations Act of 1998, which would prevent further destruction of our Nation's Federal forests, including old growth forests which remain on public land. The vote to abolish this subsidy came within only two votes of passing the House. A secondary amendment, however, cut the subsidy in half. Mr. Speaker, it is not often that we have a chance to enhance environmental protection while at the same time reducing the Federal budget deficit and finally putting an end to an unnecessary corporate subsidy. Soon, the House-Senate conference committee will make a decision about the inclusion of the logging road subsidy. I urge the conferees to eliminate purchaser credits and eliminate the appropriation for timber roads. We do not need any new taxpayer subsidized logging roads in our national forests.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct privilege and honor to pay tribute to the Burlingame, CA, Public Library, one of the finest community institutions in our country. To me and to the thousands of Bay Area residents who have had the pleasure of using this outstanding facility, the importance of the Burlingame Public Library cannot be measured merely by its diverse collection of 239,000 books, nor its 400 periodical subscriptions, nor the beautiful Tuscan-style building which has housed these items since the days of the Great Depression; rather, the library is seen by all of us in terms of the memories amassed under the shadow of its beautiful tapestries. It is a place where our children learned to read, our high school students researched their first school reports, and our eyes were opened to limitless intellectual, educational, and creative pleasures. Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute not only to this establishment's storied past, but to its glowing future. On October 4, 1997, more than 85 years after the people of Burlingame joined together to build their first public library, and after 8 years of dedicated planning, a new Burlingame Public Library will be dedicated by a justifiably proud and delighted community. The new structure will maintain the charm and elegance of the initial structure, while offering state-of-the-art facilities in line with the 21st century information age. The grand tradition of the Burlingame Public Library came into being in the early 1900's as Burlingame experienced an influx of new residents from San Francisco and from other parts of the country. The creation of a new, free library in 1912 was one of many milestones in the town's growth. The library's first home was a former church building at Primrose and Bellevue, but this small structure was soon made obsolete by the continued growth of Burlingame's population. In 1930, construction began on a new Burlingame Public Library. Designed by Col. E.L. Norberg, a longtime Burlingame resident, the new building was erected in a romantic style which evoked images of Tuscan villas and monasteries. Norberg's beautiful creation would serve Burlingame for over six decades as a cultural and literary center, a community gathering place, and a second home to thousands of students exploring its first rate academic collections. As Burlingame grew so did the library, and new additions were dedicated in 1960 and 1972. By the mid-1980's, the success of the Burlingame Public Library prompted calls for even more significant improvements to the building's structure, foundation, and technological facilities. With the full support of the community, the process of planning and organizing the library's reconstruction soon began in earnest. This operation was led by Burlingame's skilled city librarian, Mr. Al Escoffier, along with an able library board, a wonderful staff, and untiring volunteers. Financial backing came from throughout Burlingame, most notably from two devoted sources: The Friends of the Library, which has been raising funds for the library for over four decades, and the Burlingame Library Foundation, organized in 1994 to collect moneys for furnishings and technology in the new space. These dedicated groups provided vital assistance during years of preparation and design study. Group 4/Architecture, Research and Planning, Inc., one of northern California's most distinguished architectural firms, was selected to formultate a plan for the new library. The product of its labors was masterful, a blueprint for renovation that would merge the timeless beauty of Norberg's original composition with the requirements for expansion and modernization. Group 4's construction partners, Richard Sampson Associates, Inc., of Pleasanton and Dennis J. Amoroso Construction Company, Inc., of San Francisco joined to make this outstanding plan a reality. Today, after 8 years planning, 17 months of construction, and an investment of $10 million, the splendid Burlingame Public Library is about to be reopened to the community. The building's original style has been maintained, as the two 1930's wings remain intact and other important details, such as the authentic wood windows and solid oak tables and chairs, are still there. While the essence of Norberg's creation will continue to be a Burlingame landmark for generations to come, the new library has nearly doubled in size, from 26,100 to 47,300 square feet, and its foundation has been reconstructed to flex in a seismic event. It will offer over 50 computer terminals to speed and simplify information access for both children and adults. The new library will even have available a new service, self check out, which will make taking out books as easy as obtaining money from an ATM machine and make lengthy lines at check-out counters obsolete. It is truly a community institution for the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, I ask my collegues to join me in congratulating the people of Burlingame on the opening of their new library, and in commending the tireless community activists who brought this dream to fruition.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today, we here in the Congress are making the sixth anniversary of the independence of Ukraine. The formal and official anniversary falls upon August 24, but because the Congress was in recess at that time, we are celebrating this historic occasion today. Six years ago, on August 24, 1991, the parliament of Ukraine approved a declaration of independence and affirmed the sovereignty of Ukraine. That took place, as some of my colleagues will recall, in the midst of the abortive coup against Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev by military leaders and Communist hard liners in Moscow. The decisive action of Ukraine at that time sounded the death knell for the old Soviet Union. Independence was declared earlier by the Baltic Republics, but the key factor was Ukraine's courageous declaration of independence. It was followed by declarations of independence by Byelorussia, Moldova, and the Central Asian Republics. The decision of the Ukrainian parliament--the Supreme Rada--was followed by a popular referendum held on December 1, in which the people of Ukraine overwhelmingly voted to separate from the Soviet Union and establish a sovereign and independent state. It is hard to believe that these tumultuous events took place only 6 years ago, Mr. Speaker. In these past 6 years, the Ukraine has had to deal with a multitude of extremely difficult problems. First, the country has had to deal with the transition to democracy and the creation of a free-market economy, and this has required dealing with serious political and economic issues. Second, at the same time, the people of Ukraine and their government institutions have had to deal with creating separate State institutions and establishing a separate national identity because Ukraine has not existed as a separate and independent country for centuries. Third, the country has been saddled with the legacy of the failed Soviet economic and political system. The tragedy of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in northern Ukraine is only the best known and most visible consequence of eight decades of Communist Party incompetence and misrule. As the second largest country in area in Europe, and as one of the largest countries in Europe in population, Ukraine is a vital and an important friend of the United States. Strong relations between our two countries are important to secure stability and prosperity in Central and Eastern Europe. In the 6 years of independence, the Government of Ukraine has made a number of difficult choices--nuclear weapons have been removed from the territory. In July of this year, Ukraine and NATO have signed a charter affirming the commitment of NATO and Ukraine to the ``development of a strong, enduring relationship between NATO and Ukraine.'' The importance of Ukraine and our commitment to its success is clearly indicated by the level of United States foreign assistance to Ukraine-- it receives the third largest amount of assistance of all country in the world. While we celebrate Ukraine's independence, Mr. Speaker, this does not mean that all of the problems of Ukrainian independence have been resolved. Ukraine must accelerate its economic reforms, in order to assure a stable and prosperous economy. Democratic institutions and practices must be accelerated. There is still a long way to go in achieving full respect for human rights in Ukraine, including firmly establishing such fundamental rights as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. The problem of corruption and crime must be dealt with in order to assure a successful democratic government and functioning economy. While we note these serious problems, we also reaffirm our commitment to work with the Government of Ukraine in dealing with them. This festive occasion is an opportunity for us to look back over the past 6 years and marvel and rejoice in the great progress that has been made, but it is also an occasion when we can look to the future and recommit ourselves to the still-daunting tasks that the people of Ukraine face. The American people support Ukraine. We welcome your triumphs and we are willing to work with you in achieving the goals that both our countries seek in assuring the continuing independence and prosperity of Ukraine. Mr. Speaker, on this sixth anniversary of Ukrainian independence, I congratulate the people of Ukraine on this joyous national occasion. The relationship between the United States and Ukraine is an important one for both of our countries, and this occasion is a happy one for us to reaffirm our commitment to good relations and cooperation.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying a well-deserved tribute to Dr. James Billington, a dear friend of mine, who has served our Nation with great distinction as the Librarian of Congress for the last 10 years. This week we mark the 10th anniversary of the appointment of Dr. Billington to this important leadership position. I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to him as we celebrate this important milestone. Dr. Billington was appointed the 13th Librarian of Congress by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and he was subsequently confirmed to that position by the U.S. Senate. Earlier, he served as the director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and before that he was a distinguished professor and scholar of Russian history and culture at Princeton University. The Library of Congress is the largest and most comprehensive library in the world with more than 110 million items in more than 450 languages. Managing that immense collection is a major task in and of itself, but Dr. Billington assumed the position as Librarian of Congress at a critical time in the Library's history. The past 10 years have been a time of great change because of the rapid and complete transformation of information technology. At this critical time, Dr. Billington's vision, insight, and skills have been a tremendous asset for the Library, for the Congress, and for the American people. Dr. Billington was one of the first scholars and cultural administrators to recognize the significance of the approaching information age and its importance for the Library of Congress. At his confirmation hearing in 1987, Dr. Billington voiced his hope that ``the Library might furnish new technologies boldly'' and share its catalog and national treasures by the year 2000 with citizens in local communities across America. In 1994, Dr. Billington's hope became reality when the National Digital Library was launched. That project, which has as its objective to digitize 5 million items from the Library's collection at a cost of some $60 million, is being accomplished with private/public funding. Today, the Library's World Wide Web site brings to tens of millions of people the Library's catalog, the American Memory collections of the National Digital Library, and Thomas--the Library's legislative information site. The Library's site is recognized as one of the most important content sites on the Internet, and it is quickly becoming a unique and popular educational resource for teaching and learning for students at all levels. During his 10 years as Librarian, Dr. Billington has made a great contribution to the improvement of the Library in many areas, in addition to his incredible efforts in the area of technology. He has strengthened control of the Library's various collections, and increased the Library's acquisitions. For example, he was instrumental in the acquisition of the Leonard Bernstein collection, the Marion Carson collection, and the Gordon Parks collection. Under the direction of Dr. Billington, the Library of Congress has undergone a period of tremendous growth and development. He has established the first office of development at the Library to raise private funds for scholarly activities, exhibitions, and the National Digital Library. He proposed and the Congress approved the establishment of the Madison Council, a group of private citizens who provide sustained financial support to the Library. In the 10 years that Dr. Billington has served at the Library of Congress, he has raised $91.7 million, of which $41.5 million represents the contributions from the Madison Council, which is chaired by John Kluge. Additionally, Dr. Billington has made a major commitment to public display of the Library's own treasures as well as the priceless heritage of other nations around the world, and he has sponsored a series of widely acclaimed exhibitions at the Library of Congress. A few of the most spectacular exhibitions include ``Rome Reborn: The Vatican Library and Renaissance Culture,'' ``Scrolls from the Dead Sea,'' ``Revelations of the Russian Archives,'' and ``From the Ends of the Earth: Judaic Treasures of the Library of Congress.'' Mr. Speaker, I am particularly appreciative of my association with Dr. Billington and his friendship. Shortly after he became Librarian of Congress, to mark the ``Year of the Book,'' Dr. Billington and officials of the Library came to San Mateo, CA, in my congressional district, where they gave focus to the incredible resources of the Library and further emphasized the important outreach program that has been given great emphasis under Dr. Billington's leadership. Mr. Speaker, in my remarks thus far, I have focused on the outstanding achievements and leadership of Dr. Billington over this 4- year period of his stewardship at the Library of Congress. I want to add a few personal comments about Dr. Billington as a friend. A number of our colleagues in the Congress and I, had the wonderful opportunity to travel with him on a visit to Russia a few years go, under the leadership of Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Gingrich. Dr. Billington added an incredible perspective and an understanding of Russia and the Russian people to those of us who participated in that important trip. He was not only a brilliant scholar, but also a delightful traveling companion. Dr. Billington also participated in meetings which I chaired at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire between delegations representing the Congress and the European Parliament. Again, he contributed in a major way to both delegations' understanding of the complexities of our relationships with Russia and the republics of the former Soviet Union. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Billington should be congratulated for his exceptional successes during his 10-year tenure at the Library of Congress. I invite my colleagues to join me in thanking Dr. Billington and paying tribute to him for the service he has given to the Library of Congress and our Nation over the past decade.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, our Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright began her first visit to the Middle East since she assumed the position of Secretary of State earlier this year. The timing of her visit is particularly critical. In just the past 6 weeks, we have seen two terrorist bombing attacks in the streets and the market of Jerusalem. In these dastardly attacks, scores of people were killed and hundreds more were injured. These terrorist assaults are nothing more than an effort to destroy the peace process. I commend Secretary Albright for her determination and willingness to undertake the extremely precarious peace mission. She is going to that difficult region of the world with no pre-arranged outcome. There is always considerable risk in undertaking diplomatic efforts in this area. She is brave and courageous to make this trip under these difficult conditions. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I introduced a resolution which notes the significance of Secretary Albright's mission and expresses the support of the Congress for her efforts to bring peace to that region. I urge my colleagues to join me in approving this statement of encouragement and support for our Secretary of State at this critical time. I ask that the full text of my resolution--House Concurrent Resolution 149--be placed in the Record. H. Con. Res. 149 Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the visit of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to the Middle East. Whereas Madeleine Albright is currently making her first official visit to the Middle East since her appointment as Secretary of State, and Whereas the Middle East peace process is in danger of total collapse, Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring) that the Congress fully supports the efforts of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to bring a just, comprehensive, and permanent peace to the Middle East, and expresses its full confidence in her demonstrated ability and motivation to achieve that end.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, just yesterday, the South African National Party elected a successor to F.W. de Klerk, who has served for many years as the head of the party. Mr. de Klerk is the former President of South Africa. In 1990, he rejected his party's policy and his country's laws which established the vicious apartheid system, freed Nelson Mandela, and began negotiations which led to the generally peaceful transformation of South Africa from a racist society to one that is moving toward a pluralistic, multiethnic, open society. In 1993, Mr. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize--an award that was an appropriate honor to Mr. de Klerk's statesmanship, foresight, and commitment to principle. Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to Mr. de Klerk's role in the transformation of South Africa. He now retires from public life to have the time to chronicle the significant changes that he has both witnessed and helped to bring about. Mr. de Klerk gave his farewell address to the South African parliament on Tuesday, and I join his colleagues in the parliament in paying tribute to him. Commentators around the world have reacted to Mr. de Klerk's announcement by taking note of the key role he played in ending apartheid and moving his country toward democracy. I have no doubt that change eventually would have come to South Africa, even without Mr. de Klerk's efforts; justice cannot be denied forever. There is general agreement, however, that without Mr. de Klerk the transition to democracy would have been a much longer, much more painful, and certainly a much bloodier process. It is exceedingly rare that a political leader helps dismantle the system within which he has risen to power. And yet that is exactly what F.W. de Klerk did. He grew up in the world of apartheid, and he was tremendously successful in that world. But in spite of all the connections linking him to the status quo, he came to the realization that apartheid had to end. For a man so steeped in the old system and its ways of thinking, that realization represented an extraordinary conceptual leap. And, I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that leap occurred at least in part because of experiences and insights gathered by Mr. de Klerk during a trip to the United States. What he saw here helped him envisage a new and better path for South Africa. Mr. de Klerk and his wife visited our country in 1976 thanks to the U.S. Information Agency's International Visitor Program. That program-- in place since 1940--gives carefully selected individuals from foreign countries a chance to come to the United States and confer with professional counterparts and experience firsthand our institutions and society. Participants in the program are up-and-coming figures in key fields such as government, politics, the media, and education. More than 130 of them--including Mr. de Klerk--have eventually achieved positions of chief of state or head of government, and some 600 have been named to cabinet-level jobs. Margaret Thatcher, Anwar Sadat, and Willy Brandt were all participants in the program before they rose to leadership positions. The same is true of the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair. In many cases, participants may think they already know our country based on the flood of images they have received from the mass media and popular culture. But in almost every instance, they discover that those images provide an incomplete or even distorted sense of who we are. The 3- to 4-week tours of the United States provided by the International Visitor Program--a carefully structured blend of briefings, meetings, discussion sessions, and hands-on experience--give participants a much richer and more nuanced view of our Nation. This experience makes an indelible impression on most participants. That certainly was the case with Mr. de Klerk. In 1991--15 years after his trip--he stated: [My wife and I] toured the United States in 1976 on an International Visitor Exchange Program. We saw the vibrant magnificence of New York City, nature's artistry in the majestic formations of the Grand Canyon in Arizona, the cultural diversity of New Orleans, Louisiana; Miami, Florida; the excitement of Las Vegas, Nevada; the serene beauty of San Francisco, California; but most of all, we experienced the vitality and warmth of the American people. The International Visitor Program not only affected Mr. de Klerk's view of the United States, it also had a profound impact on the way he regarded his own country and its future. A profile of Mr. de Klerk published in the New York Times Sunday Magazine of November 19, 1989, includes the following statement: ``As de Klerk tells it, a 1976 visit to the United States as a guest of the United States Information Agency convinced him that race relations could not be left to run their course.'' Clearly, Mr. Speaker, that was a vitally important moment in the development of Mr. de Klerk's thinking--and we as Americans can be proud that we helped make it possible. It is no exaggeration to say that the insights that F.W. de Klerk achieved while visiting the United States as a participant in the International Visitor Program were an important factor in his decision to break with the past and help his nation in its movement toward justice and democracy. Mr. Speaker, it is significant that our country's exchange programs may be just as important a weapon in the fight to encourage democratic development as other more traditional diplomatic weapons that we use. The International Visitors Program may have been as important in bringing about the transformation of South Africa as the economic sanctions that were imposed by the Congress, over the veto and strenuous objections of then-President Ronald Reagan. I invite my colleagues in the Congress to join me in paying tribute to the former President of South Africa F.W. de Klerk, and at the same time also to join me in paying tribute to the critically important programs of the U.S. Information Agency which have also played a key role in influencing positively Mr. de Klerk's thinking about race relations, and thus affecting the course of history.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], my good friend and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for introducing this resolution. Mr. Speaker, it seems we were here just a few weeks ago dealing with an identical resolution, at which time we all hoped that perhaps we saw the last of these monstrous terrorist attacks on innocent women, children, and the elderly in the streets of Jerusalem. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the series of outrages have not yet ended. But the hypocritical charade of Yasser Arafat is at an end. This corrupt dictator who has misconstrued the patience of the Congress and the American people must now understand that our patience has been exhausted. We will no longer tolerate his embrace of the leaders of terrorist gangs. We will no longer tolerate the double-talk that on American television emphasizes the importance of the peace process, while in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank whips up sentiments of hate, violence, and bloodshed. Mr. Speaker, Secretary Albright is going to the region at a critical moment. She has the full support of this body and of the American people in making it clear to Yasser Arafat that the game is over. This corrupt dictator can no longer play along with the goodwill and the patience and the genuine desire of the American people and the American Congress to see a peace evolve between the Palestinians and Israel. Mr. Speaker, we will not tolerate one more school girl's body torn apart by terrorist bombs without full, significant retaliation. The infrastructure of the terrorists must now be destroyed by Arafat. If it will not be destroyed by Arafat, it will be destroyed by the Israeli defense forces, because to continue this series of terrorist attacks in the city of Jerusalem is simply unacceptable by the civilized world. Mr. Speaker, our President spoke forcefully and eloquently on this subject. The American people are united behind the policy of firmness. Yasser Arafat must understand that the clock has now struck 12. He will either destroy the terrorist infrastructure or that infrastructure will be destroyed for him. As the only survivor of the Holocaust ever elected to this body, I witnessed at close range the mass murder of 6 million innocent people. I am sick and tired of seeing this process repeated piecemeal in the streets of Jerusalem. Our patience is now at an end. We have suspended aid, but that is only step No. 1. This Congress and the American people are determined that the bloodbath in the streets of Jerusalem can no longer continue. We are anxious for peace, but for peace to take place the terrorists must be exterminated, their infrastructure destroyed, their embrace ended, and a truly genuine attempt at reconciling the long-suffering people, the Palestinians and Israelis, must at long last begin.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it was just a few weeks ago that you joined me and every single colleague in this body but one in denouncing Arab terrorism in Jerusalem. Here we are again with the bodies of innocent children, women, and the elderly torn to bits by this most recent preposterous, unspeakable outrage. Yasser Arafat cannot have it both ways. He cannot hug the leaders of the murderers and the assassins in the streets of Jerusalem and pretend to work for peace. The time has come for him to understand that this Nation, this Congress and the entire civilized world is expecting him to destroy the terrorist infrastructure of the various murderers groups living under his control. The upcoming visit of Secretary Albright might begin the process of peace at last. But terrorism and the pretense of peacemaking cannot coexist.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the ill- conceived and highly destructive amendment that has been offered by our colleague from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. His amendment would cut United States development assistance to India in the next fiscal year. Mr. Chairman, we have had repeated debates for more years than I would care to remember that have been similar to the one we are having today. Our colleague from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has offered this or a similar amendment whenever we have debated the foreign operations appropriations bill and whenever we have debated an international relations authorization bill. The House has repeatedly voted to defeat this unfortunate proposal, and I urge my colleagues again to vote against this distasteful demagoguery. While this annual exercise has not resulted in reducing the small amount of development assistance that the United States has provided to India, it has become an annual opportunity for a few Members of this body to make unfortunate and harmful remarks about the world's largest democracy. Mr. Chairman, instead of using this opportunity to bash the Government of India, this should be an opportunity for us to join in paying tribute to the people of India, to join in celebrating the 50th anniversary of the founding of this great country. It was just 50 years ago, in August 1947, that the era of British colonial rule ended in India, and a democratic republic was established. Now, 50 years later, there is ample reason to celebrate India's independence and its statehood. The institutionalization of democracy in India has had its difficult moments--periods of violence, including the bloodshed which accompanied the partition of India and Pakistan at the time of the establishment of the Republic of India in 1947 and more recently at the time of the tragic assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. There have been instances of ethnic and religious violence, but a multiethnic, multireligious state like India is not immune to the sectarianism and racism that has afflicted so many countries around the world. This is a time, Mr. Chairman, to celebrate and rejoice with the people of India in a half-century of great achievements. India remains a democratic society with a democratically elected parliament and a democratically elected prime minister. Democracy has flourished in a country that has a population of 900 million people. In a society that is multireligious, multiethnic, and multiracial, in a country that recognizes 16 official languages. Further complicating the effort to maintain and foster democracy in India is the fact that this country has a growing population and it suffers from a low level of economic development. I welcome the economic progress that we are witnessing in India, and I welcome the growing economic ties between India and the United States. Mr. Chairman, I am not one to underestimate or to minimize human rights violations, and I will not ignore or overlook such problems when they occur anywhere. There are human rights violations in India, and I deplore them. At the same time, however, there is evidence of progress in this important area. The 1996 annual State Department Country Reports on Human Rights notes that advances have been made in resolving human rights problems. The establishment of an independent National Human Rights Commission by the Government of India has been an important factor in this development. The governmental and judicial system of India provides legal and constitutional safeguards for human rights. The serious social tensions and violent successionist movements that exist in India create special problems, and police training is deficient in many cases. These are explanations, but they do not justify human rights violations. The important consideration, Mr. Chairman, is that the violations that do occur are not the consequence of government policies and government intentions. These problems are the result of failures in the system, and these failures are in the process of being remedied. Mr. Chairman, as political, economic, and other relationships between the United States and India are developing and expanding and improving, it would be unfortunate and extremely counterproductive for this House to adopt the ill-conceived amendment that we are now considering. I urge my colleagues to join me in a resounding vote against the Burton amendment.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the recent recall of 25 million pounds of beef has caused deep concern in the minds of many Americans about the safety of the Nation's food supply. The largest recall of meat in U.S. history has awakened new fears in consumers who are increasingly skeptical about food safety. America's food supply is the safest in the world. But it is not safe enough. Mr. Speaker, in January 1998, new meat safety rules will go into effect which will replace the old sniff and poke method used by meat inspectors. The new system will require closer scrutiny by the meat processors and USDA inspectors and will require the use of new high- technology machinery by meat processors which will test meat for bacterial contamination. Mr. Speaker, meat processors should not wait until they are legally bound to comply with these new regulations. Americans have come to expect the cleanest, safest food on the planet. Intense effort must be made to make the clean, safe food supply even cleaner and safer. Rigorous scientific checks at key points in the processing of meat must be implemented immediately to restore the public's confidence in our Nation's food supply. Mr. Speaker, as you know, under current law the U.S. Department of Agriculture cannot compel a recall of tainted food. It can only ask producers to recall products voluntarily or it can withhold its inspection seal and the meat cannot be sold in the United States. But what about meat that has already reached the consumer? Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman recently announced that he will ask Congress for the authority to recall tainted food. I strongly support this recommendation and I urge all my colleagues to work swiftly to enact this legislation. The time has come to restore public confidence in our Government's ability to ensure a safe food supply. We must give the Federal Government the power to compel a recall of tainted or potentially tainted food. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in the Record a recent editorial which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled ``Big Hamburger Recall and USDA Inspections'' for the benefit of my colleagues. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 27, 1997] Big Hamburger Recall and USDA Inspections The nationwide recall of 25 million pounds of contaminated ground beef at the peak if the summer barbecue season was a timely reminder of the imperfect and outdated methods currently used to inspect the nation's meat supplies. And it was a warning to backyard chefs that the best protection against dangerous bacteria in their burgers is to cook the red out. A rule-of-thumb is that meat should be cooked well-done at a temperature of at least 160 degrees to kill pathogens like the potentially deadly E. coli 0157:H7. So far there have been no reports the tainted meat reached California, according to the State Health Department, but a spokesman urges consumers to be alert for suspect Hudson Foods Inc. Frozen hamburger patties with ``Establishment No. 13569'' printed inside the USDA inspection seal. The tainted ground beef was traced to a meat-processing plant in Nebraska, which supplied hamburger patties to Burger King, Safeway, Wal-Mart and Sam's Club. They have removed the meat from their shelves. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman acted with alacrity in recognizing the crisis and asking for the largest meat recall in U.S. history when 16 people in Colorado were stricken after eating hamburgers. A significant weakness in the USDA's enforcement powers is that the department does not have the authority to recall tainted meat, but must depend on voluntary compliance by meat-processing companies. ``I think that most folks would be shocked to know that industry--and not federal food safety experts--ultimately make the decision as to whether or not food is recalled when the public's safety is compromised,'' said Glickman. He will ask Congress to grant him the authority to recall, which makes sense. The Hudson hamburger scare also underlined the need for new inspection regulations scheduled to be phased in over the next four years, beginning in January. The stricter new rules will require closer monitoring by federal inspectors at critical points in meat processing. New regulations will replace the unreliable ``sniff-and- poke'' inspection techniques currently practiced by USDA sleuths who have only a few seconds to spot spoiled poultry and animal carcasses as the move along an assembly line. The time for updating USDA inspection techniques is long overdue.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my strong support for the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] and my distinguished colleague and fellow Californian [Mr. Miller] to eliminate the use of U.S. taxpayer funds to promote or support the trophy hunting of elephants under the USAID sponsored program called Communal Areas Management Programs for Indigenous Resources [CAMPFIRE]. This amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of 1997 echoes the sentiment of the American people to eliminate trophy hunting and to prevent the use of taxpayer dollars to lobby for and to promote trophy hunting. As elected officials, we are duty bound to uphold the will of our constituents, the wishes of the American people. A 1997 Penn & Schoen survey found that 84 percent of Americans oppose trophy hunting, domestically and abroad. Despite this overwhelming opposition to the practice of trophy hunting, the USAID-funded CAMPFIRE program uses trophy hunts to generate funds for the majority of its projects. A recent study of the CAMPFIRE program showed that 90 percent of the funds generated from CAMPFIRE districts intended to help the indigenous populations came from trophy hunting. While CAMPFIRE funds may be used for the development of many successful and positive programs in Africa, we cannot condone the methods which are used to generate these funds. The U.S. Government has consistently supported the international ban on trade in ivory in order to prevent the destruction of endangered species. United States conservation policy should remain consistent. Our foreign assistance should not be funding elephant hunts for ivory at the same time that we are also supporting an international ban on trade in ivory. Not long ago, our Government rightly spoke out at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species [CITES] to express strong opposition to the down-listing of the African elephant from appendix I to appendix II of the convention. This down-listing would further dilute the international ban on the ivory trade. The bipartisan Fox-Miller amendment would bring our foreign assistance into line with existing United States conservation policy toward preserving the African elephant. Mr. Chairman, another disturbing effect of the CAMPFIRE program is the lobbying efforts undertaken in a number of capitals in support of expanding the program. CAMPFIRE plans to expand beyond Zimbabwe and has opened offices in Washington, London, Brussels, and Johannesburg for the principal purpose of lobbying. CAMPFIRE is a sustainable development program and should not be engaging in the process of lobbying on its own behalf with taxpayer dollars. The argument has been made that the CAMPFIRE program benefits the people of Zimbabwe, and therefore, we should continue our assistance because it helps the impoverished villagers of that country. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the assistance has limited impact upon the population of rural Zimbabwe. Only 5 cents out of every dollar generated actually benefits rural households in Zimbabwe. The comments from my constituents in San Francisco and San Mateo County speak volumes about the public's view of this trophy hunting program that is supported by the CAMPFIRE program. Mr. Chairman, I would like to share a few of the comments of my constituents with my colleagues: The CAMPFIRE program is an outrageous contradiction that flies in the face of a government continually professing its concern for nature and the environment on a global basis.-- Carol Kemski, San Bruno, California. This cruel and destructive government program should not be supported by our tax dollars.--Ron Scheinberg, San Francisco, California. I am aghast by the fact that the USAID is diverting our tax dollars into CAMPFIRE in order to enable trophy hunting of elephants.--Mary Larkin, San Francisco, California. Mr. Chairman, the Fox-Miller amendment will not stop trophy hunting in Zimbabwe. The government of that country has the sovereign right to do what it chooses to do in this regard. But this amendment will stop U.S. taxpayer funds from being used to support trophy hunting, which 84 percent of the American people oppose. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and stop the outrage of U.S. taxpayer funding of trophy hunting.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the debate over enlargement of NATO has now been engaged in earnest since NATO Summit in Madrid made the decision to extend invitations to Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to become full-fledged members of the alliance. The Congress now faces important decisions regarding NATO enlargement. Probably next year, the Senate will consider under the Constitution's provision on the ratification of treaties, the admission of these three countries, and the House and Senate will consider legislation that will be necessary to implement this expansion, including matters relating to the cost of enlargement. In the wake of the Madrid Summit, the debate has been engaged on the merits and wisdom of expanding NATO. My position on this issue, Mr. Speaker, has been clear and unequivocal. As soon as the Communist regimes in Central Europe began to collapse in 1989, I urged the expansion of NATO in order to bring strategic stability, democratic reform and the cultivation of a civil society, development of free market-oriented economies, fostering of respect for human rights, and the institution of civilian control of the military forces in these emerging democracies. I continue to support strongly the enlargement of NATO. When the current expansion was being considered, I urged the inclusion of the three countries which were invited to join, as well as the inclusion of Romania and Slovenia. I continue to support expansion to include Romania and Slovenia as well as other countries which are prepared to contribute to NATO in the future. As the debate on NATO enlargement has been engaged, one of the best expositions of the rationale for expansion was presented by my good friend, Bill Odom, who has had a distinguished military career. The Washington Post published his view in a recent Sunday ``Outlook'' section. Mr. Speaker, I call the attention of my colleagues to this excellent analysis, and I ask that it be placed in the Record. [From the Washington Post, July 6, 1997] A Look at . . . Expanding NATO--History Tells Us the Alliance Should Grow (By William E. Odom) Enlarging NATO is the last major strategic challenge confronting America in the 20th century. Previously in the century, this nation has failed to meet only one: keeping the peace in Europe after World War I. Will it fail a second time? The two cases are disturbingly analogous: Many American political leaders are again obsessed with domestic issues, refusing to recognize their inextricable ties to security affairs and misunderstanding the new forces in Europe. America withdrew from Europe after World War I, leaving a belt of new democracies, the so-called ``successor states,'' extending from the Baltic to the Mediterranean. France, Britain, Germany and the Soviet Union soon entangled them in competing alliances. Although they all began as democracies, by the mid-1930s all but one were dictatorships. These developments ensured another war. History does not repeat itself, but structural continuities often prompt similar political developments. That is why the period between the two world wars is so instructive today. The critics insist that NATO can survive without enlargement. In the short term, they are right, but the longer-term dynamics would inevitably fracture the alliance. Maintaining the status quo is a sure formula for bringing about U.S. withdrawal from Europe. Confronted by strong forces of change, NATO will either enlarge to moderate them or be broken by them. And the key to moderating them is Germany, not Russia. Managing the emergence of German power peacefully has been the major problem in 20th-century Europe. Not only did German leaders fail in 1914, other European leaders share the blame. The resulting Great War produced the Soviet problem, the Nazis and a new war, the bloodiest in history. After 1945, the United States rectified its earlier mistake, remaining engaged in Europe to resist Soviet expansion. As the rationale for NATO, however, the German problem loomed larger for most Europeans than the Soviet threat, especially for the French. NATO proved surprisingly effective in nurturing a new Germany as well as containing Soviet power, but today the Soviet threat is gone while the German problem is not entirely resolved. German leaders understand this reality well, and that is why they strongly support NATO enlargement. They seek to bind Germany within an integrated Europe as a way to avoid a return to their old predicament. The European Union's (EU) goal of a ``common foreign and defense policy,'' therefore, is conceived as a lasting solution to the German problem. Its realization, however, remains far from complete as the EU faces the changes caused by the end of the Cold War. In the absence of a multilateral mechanism incorporating Central Europe, competitive policies toward that region will be pursued unilaterally by Germany, France, Britain, Russia and others. (A reappearance of the interwar patterns of diplomacy was evident in the Europeans' reaction to the breakup of Yugoslavia. Finally, NATO forces were required to restore peace in Bosnia.) Thus, Central Europe will again become the scene of some, if not all, of the perverse dynamics of the interwar period unless NATO enlarges to preempt them. Suppose the United States had followed the advice of the critics and rejected NATO enlargement. Could NATO survive the dynamics of the competition among its key members that would follow? Some argue that the EU could moderate them. But that is unpersuasive in light of the obstacles confronting the EU's adoption of a single currency, not to mention a common defense and foreign policy. Actually, Central Europe presents the EU with a paralyzing dilemma: to ``widen'' or to ``deepen'' its integration process? Widening into Central Europe would delay the deepening of existing political and military integration; deepening would leave Central Europe as a zone of diplomatic competition, endangering the EU process itself. Why? Germany. Britain and France, which were already uncomfortable with a federal Europe that included a strong but divided Germany, are more nervous about a unified Germany bound to be the federation's dominant component. Without a federal Europe, they will be tempted to engage Central Europe against Germany, a game that will invite the most mischievous diplomacy by Moscow. The only viable way out is through NATO enlargement--that is, engaging NATO in the same role in Central Europe that it has long played within Western Europe. The opponents of enlargement wring their hands about Russia, financial costs and other problems while ignoring the crucially important German problem, no matter that German politicians from all parties warn against leaving Germany on its own to deal with the East. To be sure, NATO enlargement will cause problems, but its opponents focus mainly on the manageable ones. They usually exaggerate the financial costs. So, too, Russia's probable reaction. The venerable Russia expert George Kennan warns that expansion will destroy Russian democracy. Why would Russia give up democracy to spite NATO? That would harm Russia, not NATO. Actually, Russia has very little ``liberal'' democracy to destroy. Civil and property rights do not yet enjoy effective protection in Russia. NATO enlargement will undercut those neoimperialist Russian politicians who oppose it and who also misrepresent Russian public attitudes toward it as reflected in polling data. Moreover, proponents of enlargement also urge a continuing and broad Western engagement with Russia, no its isolation. Other problems, however, are serious, especially the reactions of those countries denied membership in the first round. Their plight demands effective attention--foremost, credible assurance that NATO enlargement is a continuing process, not a one-time affair. An active policy of continuing engagement with each is equally essential. New members will also cause problems. Some may have embarrassing political scandals involving former Communists and KGB connections. Some may falter in their democratic transitions. NATO, of course, has already coped with such problems in some present member states. Finally, some critics doubt the administration's competence to carry through NATO enlargement. The president has yet to make the case effectively to the public, and some European leaders believe they are being treated poorly (in French President Jacques Chirac's quaint language, ``like crap'') in the consultation process. This is worrisome, not just where it concerns Senate ratification but also realities in Europe. When the president told the public that American credibility was at stake if we did not commit troops to the NATO force in Bosnia, he also set an early date for their withdrawal, thereby undermining implementation of the Dayton accord. How can the United States, then, have sufficient credibility in Europe for carrying through on NATO enlargement if it walks away from Bosnia before peace is secure? Success in Bosnia is related to NATO enlargement. Fortunately, the administration evaded the one-year deadline, but the secretary of defense now calls for a pullout next year. Also, President Clinton's occasional remarks on reducing NATO's military essence--for example, after his recent meeting with President Boris Yeltsin of Russia--do not reflect clear thinking about what is required for Partnership for Peace activities. Bosnia and other potential military operations. This is hardly reassuring U.S. leadership. No great strategic departure is without risks, and enlarging NATO has some, as its opponents abundantly point out. Likewise, there are risks in not going forward, for that, too, is a strategic departure--backward from Europe. The reunification of Germany within NATO is the greatest strategic realignment in Europe's history without a major war, an achievement no pundit would have conceded beforehand to be possible. But that is only half of the task. Consolidating a community of liberal democracies in Central Europe and beyond is the more difficult half. Failure would eventually affect America's own economy and security adversely, not to mention the negative political and moral consequences. Is America worthy of its liberty and prosperity if it no longer dares to accept such challenges with energy and optimism?

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I have consistently and strongly supported the addition of new members to the North Atlantic Alliance. I welcome enthusiastically the decision of NATO to invite Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to join the alliance. In this regard, I want to pay particular tribute to our Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for her intense efforts and effective leadership in bringing about this very positive result. Mr. Speaker, the visit of Secretary Albright to Prague was significant and emotional. It was her first since she became our Secretary of State at the beginning of the year. As my colleagues know, Secretary Albright was born in Czechoslovakia, and her father, Joseph Korbel, was a distinguished member of that country's diplomatic service. In 1948 he and his family, including Madeleine, were forced to flee their homeland when the Communist Party assumed complete control of the country. To the great benefit of our country, they chose to come to the United States, and at that time our Nation was farsighted enough to welcome such political refugees. Secretary Albright has been appropriately recognized by the Government of the Czech Republic for her effective and farsighted leadership as our Secretary of State. When she was in Prague 2 weeks ago following the NATO summit at Madrid, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel, awarded her the Order of the White Lion, the highest honor that the Republic can bestow upon a non-Czech citizen. This was a most fitting and appropriate award, and one that I am sure was especially meaningful to Secretary Albright because of her background. During her visit to Prague, Secretary Albright addressed a meeting of the leaders of the Czech Government convened by President Havel. The speech was held in the Obecni Dum, the historic hall where the Republic of Czechoslovakia was proclaimed in 1918, with the support and assistance of American President Woodrow Wilson and the United States. Secretary Albright in her speech struck a most fitting historic tone that was appropriate to the place and the significance of the historic decision to invite the Czech Republic to become a member of NATO. She made most appropriate references to the abandonment of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany by Britain and France in 1938 at the Munich Conference, the Communist takeover of the country in 1948, and the Velvet Revolution in November 1989. Secretary Albright's speech on this occasion was an outstanding statement of the historic and strategic significance of the admission of the Czech Republic to NATO. Not only did she focus upon the importance of this step for the Czech Republic, but she also discussed its significance for other nations in the future. In particular, she challenged the Czechs to play a positive leadership role in the future expansion of NATO to still other countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Secretary Albright's address be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to read and give it thoughtful attention: A Moment of Celebration and of Dedication: Address by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright to the People of Prague July 14, 1997 President Havel, Prime Minister Klaus, Senators and Parliamentarians, Excellencies, distinguished guests, thank you so much for your warm and unforgettable welcome. Let me being by expressing my sadness at the devastation that has been caused by the flooding over the last week. Our thoughts and prayers today are with those who have lost their loved ones and their homes. I know that there are many mayors here from regions affected by the flood. The solidarity and dedication that you and the Czech people have shown in this tragedy is inspiring. This week, as I traveled from Madrid to central Europe, I could not help but think about the three journeys that have framed my life, and my life's work: I have been thinking about the memories and the meaning of my own family's journey through the war and the turbulence of post-war Europe to the freedom and security of the United States. I have been thinking as well about Europe's journey from total war to absolute division to the promise of enduring unity and peace. And of course, I have been thinking about the journey of the Czech nation from the day in 1918 when its independence was proclaimed on this very spot, to the day in 1948 when its liberty was extinguished, to this day, when you take your rightful place in the family of European democracies--fully, finally and forever. T.S. Eliot wrote: We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. Today, you know me in a new way, in my new role. And I see you in a new way as well--not only as the friend of the United States, but also as our next ally. Truth does conquer, after all. President Havel: Truth and love do conquer after all. I have been here many times since the Velvet Revolution. And I am filled with pride every time I hear the playing of my country's national anthem, ``The Star Spangled Banner,'' and yours, ``Where is my Home.'' But nothing compares to the feeling of coming to my original home, Prague, as the Secretary of State of the United States, for the purpose of saying to you: Welcome home. For with the news from Madrid this week, you are coming home in fact to the community of freedom that you never left in spirit. From Munich to Madrid, from tragedy to triumph, it has been a long and painful journey. But you have arrived at your destination. You have arrived at a moment of injustice undone, of promises kept, of a unified Europe begun. Now, a new journey begins; and at last, we can travel it together. We stand at one of those great turning points in history. For the third time in this century, the politics of Europe are changing fundamentally. And this time, we pray, for good. Almost 80 years ago, our parents and grandparents were full of the hope that Woodrow Wilson's dream of universal democracy inspired across the lands of central and eastern Europe. That dream was shattered by the illusion that the people of Paris and London and New York could simply go on with their lives while the people of Vilnius and Krakow and Prague were robbed of their independence, sent away in box cars, and machine-gunned in forests. After World War II, it was Stalin's armies that shattered our dream. And for the next 50 years, one half of Europe was consigned to subjugation, the other half to fear. We were separated by concrete and barbed wire, by radio jammers and minefields, by lies that might seem ridiculous today had they not ruined so many lives. The amazing thing is that all those years of propaganda, terror, and isolation utterly failed to flatten Europe's moral landscape. The communist authorities kept from you the truth, and still you spoke the truth. They fed you a vacuous culture and still you gave us works of art that fill our lives with intelligence, humor and warmth. They tried to smother your allegiances, your faith and your initiative, and still you taught the world the meaning of solidarity and civil society. They banished your finest leaders, and still you gave us Vaclav Havel. This is what we must remember as the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland join NATO. As President Clinton has said, we are not just new allies. In the ways that truly matter, we are old allies. We are and always have been and always will be part of the same community. NATO membership will bring many benefits to the Czech Republic and to others who join today and in the future--as will our broader strategy of integration. Above all, it means you will always be able to rely on us and we will always be able to rely on you. If there is a threat to the peace and security of this country, we will be bound by a solemn commitment to defeat it together. For this reason, we can be confident such a threat is far less likely to arise. It means security in Europe will not stop at its Cold War dividing lines. It means Europe's new democracies will not be consigned to a buffer zone of excluded states. It means you will be the authors of your history, the masters of your destiny, the vassals and victims of no one. But, my friends, this is more than a moment of celebration. For NATO's old and new allies alike, it is also a moment of challenge. Our most immediate challenge is to ensure together that the people and parliaments of NATO's 16 member nations embrace the enlargement of our alliance. In America, the debate will be vigorous. Because we take our commitments seriously, we do not extend them lightly. I believe that our Senate will approve this initiative, but the burden of proof will still rest with those of us who believe that NATO enlargement serves American interests. The Senators will ask us many appropriate questions about risks and costs. They will remind you, as do I, that with a first class ticket to NATO comes the obligation to make a first class contribution. Regrettably, you will also hear echoes of Munich in this debate. Already, people have trotted out the tired myth that in times of crisis we will make no sacrifice to defend a distant city with an unpronounceable name; that we will protect the freedom of Barcelona but not Brno, Stuttgart but not Szczecin. I challenge those critics; come meet your future allies. Speak with their people. Their names may sound unfamiliar, but they speak the same language of freedom. Visit the veterans in this region who fought for the allied cause in World War II. Talk to the veterans of the dissident movements. They have spent a lifetime sacrificing for the ideals we have in common. Look them in the eye. Ask them why we should be allied with Europe's old democracies forever, but its new democracies never. You might listen to President Havel, as well. ``If we appeal to the West not to close itself off to us,'' he has said, ``this is not only because we are concerned about our own security and stability. We are concerned about the destiny of the values and principles that communism denied, and in whose name we resisted communism and ultimately brought it down.'' Defending values, righting history's wrong's--these are idealistic arguments. Oddly, some are troubled by that. They want NATO to remain its military muscle, but they are suspicious of enlargement because its also appeals to our hearts. Others, who champion freedom in central Europe and Russia, are suspicious of enlargement precisely because NATO is an organization with tanks and bombers. But there is no contradiction here between realism and idealism, between pragmatism and principle, between security and justice. Those of us who knew Prague before the Cold War know that freedom without security is a frail reed. And those in America who most ardently prosecuted the Cold War should be the first to admit that it was not merely a military enterprise, but an idealistic one as well. You know that NATO enlargement fulfills a moral and strategic challenge. By turning a Europe of shared values into a Europe of shared responsibilities, you know we can do both. Because we are old friends, let me speak plainly. NATO is welcoming new members because we know you are ready to make an even deeper commitment to the common endeavors of our alliance of democracies--from the pursuit of peace in troubled regions, to the flight against terror and crime, to our support for those who still struggle for the freedom you enjoy. For example, the SFOR mission in Bosnia will come to an end in one year. But the United States has made a long-term commitment to support peace in that country and given what you have already done in Bosnia, I trust you will, too. I trust you will also be leaders in the effort to keep deadly weapons from dangerous rogue states, even if it means losing a sale from time to time. And I trust you will pay the costs and do what is necessary to assure the full integration of the Czech armed forces into NATO. It is your willingness to assume great responsibilities that has brought you to this point. You are about to join NATO. You are already a member of the OECD. No doubt, you will join the EU as well. Our memory of the last 50 years makes it hard to believe, but as you enter these institutions, you will stand among the most prosperous and powerful nations in the world. You are no longer on the outside looking in; you are on the inside looking forward. For 50 years, you looked to the free world for support, understanding, and recognition. Now you are the free world; other nations will look to you for support. Part of our new responsibility to others is to ensure that the door to NATO remains open to all European democracies that are willing and able to meet the obligations of membership. That is the policy NATO adopted in Madrid. We count on you to support that policy in word and in deed. It is also a personal commitment President Clinton has made to all the nations that lie between the Baltic and Black Seas. And it is our message today to the people of Slovakia. For it is our sincere hope that their nation will rejoin the path of true democratic reform and make itself a strong candidate for the second round of NATO enlargement. To all the nations that still aspire to join NATO, I say: consider why we have invited the Czech Republic. It is not because the Czechs are somehow more ``European'' than the Orthodox and Muslim peoples to the south and east; we have no patience for that kind of thinking. It is not because Prague is west of Vienna. It is not just because of your pre-war democratic tradition. Rather, the Czech Republic's invitation to NATO was inscribed by its deeds over the last seven years. Others will soon be ready to follow your lead, and you must join us in helping them. You know that the effort to join NATO is not a race to escape a bad neighborhood. It is an effort to improve the neighborhood for the benefit of all. This is why I appreciate the Czech Republic's support for the NATO-Russia Founding Act and your recognition that a democratic Russia must be part of a Europe whole and free. As President Havel has said, ``in this era, we--as nations-- cannot divide ourselves according to who were the victors and who the vanquished in the past.'' After my trip to Europe this week, I am more confident than ever that together, we can meet his challenge and more. In Madrid, I saw NATO's strength as its leaders made a decision that was difficult but right. With President Clinton in Warsaw, I saw that our new allies are not just ready but eager to add their energy to ours. In Bucharest, I watched the President address 100,000 people at University Square-- and even though their country will not be among the first group of new allies, they showed us that they support NATO's enlargement and that they will do what it takes to be part of a new Europe. I heard the same message in Ljubljana and in Vilnius. And in St. Petersburg, I saw a Russia that is moving ahead with reform and moving closer to the rest of Europe. Today, I can foresee a Europe where every nation is free and every free nation is our partner. Not long ago, that was a future we might have imagined, but in the darkest moments perhaps thought would never come. And that brings me back to the earlier part of my remarks--and of my life. Fifty years ago, Jan Masaryk was told by Stalin in Moscow that Czechoslovakia must not participate in the Marshall Plan despite its national interest in doing so. Upon his return to Prague, Masaryk told my father, his chef de cabinet, and it was then he understood that he was employed by a government no longer sovereign in its own land. Soon after, the communists took over in Prague. That coup drove my parents and me from this country for the second time. And more than any other single event, that coup awakened America and western Europe to the need for an Atlantic Alliance. Thus, the event that cast my family out of Prague, and you into darkness, also helped to create the Alliance that has brought me back again, and put you in the center of a new Europe. Today, there is no Stalin to give orders to you or to anyone. The opportunity to be part of the international system is open to all. The goal of integration is not bound by strategic realities or confined by cultural arrogance to western Europe, to central Europe or even to Europe. Today, the west has no fixed eastern frontiers. Every democratic nation that seeks to participate in the global system we are constructing and that is willing to do all it can to help itself will have America's help in finding the right path. Now they will have your help and your example as well. People of Prague, people of the Czech Republic: Half a century ago, our journeys diverged. But this week's events have brought our paths together again. Now we are reunited in a common cause. Soon we will be joined in a common alliance. And we will never be parted again. You were the passion of my parents. You are the land of my birth. And now you and I, my nation and yours, will build and defend a new Europe together. God bless you.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his comments, and under my reservation of objection I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for his comments, and under my reservation of objection I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Sherman].

Mr. LANTOS. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I would like to express the condolences of the Congress of the United States and the American people to the families of the victims and to the people of Israel for the loss of life and the 172 serious injuries that have been suffered in this preposterous and outrageous terrorist bombing in a Jerusalem market. I wish to express the solidarity of the American people with the people of Israel in the face of this tragic, senseless, brutal, bloody act. I would like to reaffirm the determination of the Congress, Mr. Speaker, to join with the Government of the State of Israel in fighting international terrorism. I want to urge Yasser Arafat to undertake immediately and unequivocally action to bring to justice the leaders of all the terrorist organizations and extremist groups currently residing in territory under his control, to confiscate their weapons and their explosives, and to keep convicted criminals and terrorists in prison and not to release them. I wish to reaffirm, Mr. Speaker, the commitment of the Congress of the United States to the peace process in the Middle East. I want to urge all parties to work together to bring lasting peace and security without violence and terrorism in this region. I also want to urge President Clinton and our Department of State and other executive agencies to provide all appropriate assistance to the Government of Israel, to provide medical and other assistance to the victims of this terrorist act, and to bring to justice the terrorist leaders behind this and similar acts of violence and to work to prevent future such terrorist acts. Mr. Speaker, I also want to identify myself fully with the words of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] our distinguished Speaker. He made it clear that there is an asymmetry in the Middle East peace process; that from time to time outrageous terrorist events occur, dozens of innocent Israeli men, women and children are massacred, and then there is some diplomatic move which presumably calls for evenhanded action. I think the time is long past due for Yasser Arafat to live up to his obligation, to use his vast police apparatus to ferret out the terrorist nests and to put an end to this nightmare. It is unacceptable for a civilized society to have to live with constant terrorist threats. At Oklahoma City we learned what it means to have a terrorist act take place on the territory of our own Nation. We are a Nation of 260 million people, and in the last few years we had two terrorist acts of significant proportions, the one at the World Trade Center, and the one at Oklahoma City. The people of Israel suffer from such terrorist acts on a regular basis. A country of a few million people, every one of these incidents hits every single family because they have a sense of community and commitment and belonging. It is long overdue, Mr. Speaker, that the United Nations also show some balance in recognizing the threat under which Israel lives day in and day out: the Islamic Jihad, the Hamas and the other terrorist organizations, hellbent on destroying the attempt to create peace in the region that millions of decent Israelis and Arabs so desperately crave.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield further to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for that eloquent statement and, further reserving the right to object, I want to emphasize in concluding, Mr. Speaker, that this House is united in denouncing this outrageous and brutal act of terrorism.