Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, a few days after the Congress adjourned for our August recess, the Republican presidential candidate, former Senator Robert Dole, unveiled his economic program. Although the fight over abortion at the Republican platform meetings in San Diego at the same time upstaged the unveiling and dominated the news coverage that week, Mr. Dole nevertheless continues to press forward with his economic program, which includes a 15-percent tax cut. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have been there. We have done that. In the words of the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, who I believe deserves the credit for the most remarkable and descriptive phrase for this program, this is ``deja voodoo economics all over again.'' We saw all of this when Ronald Reagan was elected President and his supply-side economic advisors brought us the tax cuts of 1981 and the budget deficits that plagued our Nation throughout the 1980's. Now, after President Clinton and the Democratic Congress made some extremely difficult decisions in 1993, we have succeeded in cutting in half that Reagan/Bush-era legacy of huge annual budget deficits. It truly boggles the mind to contemplate the serious consequences that would follow the enactment of the Dole economic plan. Mr. Speaker, one of the best summaries and analyses of the Dole economic program appeared in an article by Matthew Miller which was published in the September 2 issue of the New Republic. I ask that this article be placed in the Record and I urge my colleagues to give it careful and thoughtful consideration. [From the New Republic, Sept. 2, 1996] Charades (By Matthew Miller) Everybody in this room's gonna get tax relief!''--Bob Dole, August 5, 1996. When respected politicians offer silly plans claiming to fix big national problems, journalists are nonetheless expected to give them the rational analysis only serious plans deserve. The very effort legitimizes such proposals as constructive additions to public debate. Especially when these schemes are offered by a major party's presidential candidate, there's no way around the conundrum, except to note it. Which brings us to Bob Dole's new economic ``plan.'' Everyone knows that Dole's call to cut taxes $550 billion over six years while also balancing the budget betrays his lifelong claims to be a fiscal conservative in favor of the ``supply-side'' voodoo he's loathed. But you need to look at the plan's ``details'' to really appreciate how it brings budget chicanery to dizzying new heights. Indeed, if Dole's team of job-seeking economists and GOP has-beens had set out to discredit his career-long reputation for fiscal courage, they couldn't have done it any better. Begin, as Dole does, with the candy. Dole's basic assortment (using his campaign's six-year cost estimates) includes a phased-in 15 percent cut in income tax rates ($400 billion); a $500 per-child tax credit ($75 billion); a repeal of Clinton's 1993 increase in the portion of whether Social Security recipients' benefits that are subject to taxes ($27 billion); a cut in the top capital gains tax from 28 to 14 percent ($13 billion); and a potpourri of such savings incentives as IRA expansions and tax-favored education accounts ($27 billion). To put Dole's new recklessness in perspective, these tax cuts amount to more than twice what Republicans considered ``revolutionary'' in the budget the president vetoed last fall, and nearly five times what the GOP specified in its updated budget blueprint this spring. As Martha Phillips of the Concord Coalition notes, Dole's projected revenue loss for 2002 alone is what this year's Congress hoped to enact for the next six years together. Unfortunately, cost aside, the economics of the plan are no better. Capital gains devotees say lower rates are needed to spur savings and investment. Yet last time we ran that experiment and lowered top rates from 35 percent to 20 percent between 1978 and 1985, savings and investment fell. According to most economists, Dole-style IRA expansions give people tax breaks for saving they're already doing, meaning that or dismal overall savings rate would be unaffected. Demagoguing Clinton's modest Social Security tax hike, which affected only the best-off 13 percent of beneficiaries, poisons the well for the kind of sensible means-testing that Dole knows will son have to be considered. And even the growth crowd admits Dole's child tax credit will boost only current consumption--unless parents sock it away in Dole's new education account, converting it, in effect, to a huge, government-funded savings plan of the kind liberals would blush to propose. Of course, the income tax cut is the plan's ``crown jewel'' when it comes to supposed incentives for work and growth. Assessing its likely impact means entering into the religious war over the economic lessons of the 1980s. The mainstream view is that, yes, Reagan's lower marginal rates spurred some undetermined growth (though for most workers, subsequent payroll tax hikes offset any income tax cuts). But the ``boom'' supply-siders love to tout, the 3.8 percent annual growth between 1982 and 1989, came mainly because we were emerging from a deep recession that left jobless rates in double digits and much idle capacity. When easier Fed policy and the demand-side boost from Reagan's unprecedented deficits picked up this ``slack,'' we grew faster for a time. Measured properly, however--from peak to peak in the business cycle--the 1970s actually saw faster growth (3.4 percent) than the 1980s (2.7 percent). The supply-side elixir is an illusion, something Dole's plan unintentionally admits itself. As Robert Reschauer of the Brookings Institution points out, Dole's plan implicitly assumes we'll get to about 2.5 percent growth from 2.2ish today. That's a far cry from the 3.5 percent Dole and new soulmate Jack Kemp peddle on the stump. When it comes to paying for this bonanza, Dole offers a hoax wrapped in a farce tucked inside a charade. He conveniently extrapolates a mysterious current revenue blip to bank $80 billion more than the Congressional Budget Office now expects will come in. He says a third of his supply-side tax cuts will pay for themselves via higher growth, nearly twice the ``magic'' Ronald Reagan himself relied on in the '80s. Dole also books, in advance, the so-called ``fiscal dividend'' that a credible balanced budget plan might bring (through lower interest rates and higher growth, even though his plan is anything but credible. Then, if possible, it gets worse. Dole assumes enactment of $393 billion in spending cuts from the GOP budget that Clinton vetoed last year. But tons of these cuts were legislated by a mere spending ``cap,'' and thus never specified at all. Even with this gimmick, dole still falls $217 billion short of balance. That's trouble, since Dole has irresponsibly sworn to keep the most expensive programs-- defense and Social Security--off the table, along with any Medicare and Medicaid savings beyond what Republicans have offered already. That leaves basically one area to slice: so- called ``domestic discretionary'' spending, which makes up just 15 percent of the budget, and which has already shrunk from 5 percent of national income twenty years ago toward 3 percent today. This category includes everything we normally think of as government, from national parks to NASA to the

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the International Relations Committee for his effort and insight in bringing this important resolution to the floor of the House today. I am pleased to join him as a cosponsor of this important resolution congratulating Ukraine on the progress that this newly independent country has made toward achieving a democratic society and a functioning market economy. Mr. Speaker, we in the United States have an important stake in the future success and prosperity and democratic progress of the Ukraine-- and what takes place in Ukraine will reverberate well beyond the borders of that country. It can rightfully be said, Mr. Speaker, that as Ukraine goes, so will go the newly independent republics of the former Soviet Union, including Russia. With the exception of Russia, Ukraine has the largest population of the former Soviet republics. It also has the largest, most advanced and most highly diversified economy of all of the independent former Soviet Republics. If Ukraine is able to maintain its sovereignty and its independence from Russia while at the same time establishing the economic and political ties with its closest and largest neighbor, this will bring us a good deal closer to our goal of seeing democracy take root throughout the former Soviet Union. We must encourage Russia to recognize, respect, and observe in practice the full sovereignty of Ukraine. This is as important a consideration for the policy of the United States toward Russia as it is of our policy toward Ukraine. We have reason for considerable optimism in regard to the progress of democracy in Ukraine, Mr. Speaker. The Presidential election on July 19, 1994, and parliamentary elections that took place just a few months earlier on March 27, 1994, are important milestones in democracy in Ukraine. For a population that has not had the benefit of a tradition of a free and open and democratic electoral process, the people of Ukraine have shown a remarkable commitment to democracy through their participation in these elections. Mr. Speaker, an important marker that is on the horizon is the adoption of a new constitution for Ukraine. As the people and the Government of Ukraine make progress in working on their new constitution, it is important that they provide assurances of full civil and human rights for all peoples of Ukraine. That is of vital importance to the future of that country, and it is vital for the future of relations between the United States and Ukraine. We in the United States have a strong commitment to respect for civil and human rights, and--as is evident from the attention and focus we give to the annual ``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices''--our relationship with other countries is very much conditioned upon their respect for these important rights. We in the United States wish President Kuchma, the Government, and the Parliament success as they work out the details of this fundamental charter of democracy. Mr. Speaker, we in the United States also have a strong interest in the success of economic reform in Ukraine. Moving ahead quickly to transform the economy is essential for democratic progress and for the prosperity of the Ukrainian people. The social and economic and political change in Ukraine has not been easy on the citizens of that country, and for this reason it is important that economic growth provide material benefits for the people. We in the United States have a stake in that success, and it is important that we here undertake all efforts to assure victory in that process. Mr. Speaker, I join in urging continued support for the Ukrainian people in their ongoing fight to bring peace, economic success, and political democracy to Ukraine.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today with a number of our distinguished colleagues from both Chambers of the Congress, I am hosting a farewell reception to honor and bid goodbye to the distinguished Ambassador of the State of Israel, my dear friend Itamar Rabinovich. The Ambassador will return to Israel before the Congress returns from its August recess, and this is our last opportunity to bid him farewell while we are all still here in Washington. Mr. Speaker, joining me in hosting this reception are our colleagues from the other body, Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Joseph Biden of Delaware. From the House, the hosts are Congressmen Howard Berman of California, Benjamin A. Gilman of New York, and Bill Paxon of New York. Ambassador Rabinovich was named Ambassador of Israel to the United States in November 1992, and he has served with great distinction during this past 4 years--a particularly significant time in United States-Israel relations. He was on hand for the transition in U.S. administrations when President Clinton replaced President Bush in January 1993. Later in September of that year on the South Lawn of the White House, President Clinton hosted the signing ceremony of the agreement between the State of Israel and the PLO which led to the major breakthrough in the peace process. He continued to play an important role coordinating efforts between the United States and Israel as the peace process moved forward with the signature of the treaty of peace with Jordan and a number of other important steps toward regional accommodation. Mr. Speaker, we in the Congress have had ample opportunity to judge the quality of his representational skills. He has been a frequent visitor to my office and to the offices of a great many of us here on Capitol Hill. He has been a forceful advocate and a skilled representative. He has played a critical role in further strengthening the already strong ties between our two countries, and all of us owe him a debt of gratitude for his dedicated conscientious and intelligent service. In addition to his critical role as the principal point of contact with our own Government, however, Itamar served simultaneously as chief negotiator with Syria, a position to which he was appointed in August 1992, just a few months before his appointment as Ambassador to the United States. As a highly regarded academic specialist on Syria, Ambassador Rabinovich played a key role in the extended series of negotiations with the Damascus government. Either position--as Ambassador to the United States or as chief negotiator with Syria--is a full time position. Not only did Itamar handle then both, he handled them with great skill and he did an excellent job in giving justice to both positions. Itamar Rabinovich is a distinguished scholar with an international reputation. Before his appointment as Ambassador to the United States, he was rector of Tel Aviv University. He was also a professor of Middle Eastern studies and the former head of the Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at the university. As an academic specialist on Syria, he is the author of Syria Under the Ba-ath, 1963- 66, The War for Lebanon, 1970-82, and The Road Not Taken: Early Arab- Israeli Negotiation. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues in the Congress to join me in paying tribute and expressing our gratitude for the distinguished diplomatic service of our friend, Ambassador Itamar Rabinovich, and in wishing a successful and happy future to Itamar and his lovely wife, Efrat, and their family.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my colleagues' attention to the second anniversary of the horrific terrorist attack in Buenos Aires, Argentina, against the Jewish community center. On July 18, 1994, a car bomb was detonated outside of the seven-story building in Buenos Aires that housed the AMIA [Association Mutual Israelita Argentina] and DAIA [Delegacion de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas]. That barbaric act took the lives of 86 innocent people and injured more than 300 others. To date, those responsible remain at large. Mr. Speaker, we in the Congress have repeatedly expressed to the Argentine authorities our firm conviction that they must do everything in their power to solve this case, and the as yet unsolved case of the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. While we are encouraged by recent arrests of several Argentine police officers in connection with the ongoing investigation, clearly much more needs to be done. I commend my colleagues' attention to the following two letters which were sent this day to President Menem of the Republic of Argentina. The first was signed by 42 Members of Congress and expresses the view, held most certainly by all Members, that Argentine authorities must redouble their efforts to find and prosecute the terrorists who committed these heinous crimes. The second letter is from Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. Mr. Foxman cites the recent resignation of the Minister of Justice and applauds the opportunity for President Menem to appoint an individual truly committed to solving these cases. Mr. Speaker, on this second anniversary of the AMIA bombing, we must restate our determination to fight global terrorism and to support friendly governments who wish to join this struggle. As Argentina continues successfully its evolution to full democracy, we must urge the Argentine Government to stand fast with the United States against the mutual enemy of democracy--global terrorism--and to redouble its efforts to solve these cases of terrorism: July 18, 1996. His Excellency Carlos Saul Menem, President of the Republic of Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina Dear Mr. President: We are writing to you on the second anniversary of the bombing of the AMIA Jewish Community Center to express our dismay at the lack of resolution in the ongoing investigation of that bombing and the 1992 Israeli Embassy bombing in Buenos Aires. We fervently hope that the recent arrests of several police officers will yield a long- awaited break in the AMIA case. Although Members of Congress previously have written to you on this subject, we strongly believe that the anniversary of this tragic event requires us to restate our conviction that Argentine authorities must conduct a reinvigorated effort to find and prosecute those responsible. We appreciate the Argentine government's desire to successfully complete these investigations and deliver justice to the victims and their families. However, despite cooperation from United States government experts and years of investigation by Argentine authorities, the murderers are still at large. This is an intolerable situation. No citizens of any country should have to live under the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, until those responsible for the bombings in Argentina are apprehended, the Jewish community of Argentina will live under the threat of more terrorism, and Argentina will appear to be a haven for terrorists from around the world. Mr. President, as we have learned from our own horrendous experiences with terrorism, these cases are difficult, but not impossible to solve. With sufficient will and effort, successful prosecution can eventually be achieved. We urge you to redouble your government's efforts in this task. We look forward to your response to our previous inquiry for information on the status of these investigations and to working with you to bring the guilty to justice. Cordially, Tom Lantos, Jon Fox, Ben Gilman, Gary Ackerman, William Martini, Robert Torricelli, Ron Dellums, Stephen Horn, Howard Berman, Martin Frost, Peter King, Robert Menendez, Sander Levin, Jennifer Dunn, Carrie Meek, Charles Schumer, Herb Bateman, Martin Meehan, Michael Doyle, Jerrold Nadler, Sidney Yates, Ken Calvert, Peter Deutsch, Frank Tejeda, Lane Evans, Nita Lowey, John Olver, Rodney Frelinghuysen, Bob Filner, Steve Stockman, Steve Chabot, Zoe Lofgren, Ben Cardin, Peter Blute, Cliff Stearns, Elizabeth Furse, Sherrod Brown, Ilean Ros-Lehtinen, Victor Frazer, Jay Kim, Cynthia McKinney, and Rick Lazio.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, what was the gentleman smoking?

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment. We are witnessing the rite of passage of a formerly totally totalitarian and dictatorial country into the ranks of law-abiding international citizens, fully respecting human rights, and making significant progress toward democracy and free market systems. For those of my colleagues who are new to this body, allow me to state that 4 years ago I led the successful fight to prevent Romania from getting MFN treatment. I did so against an incumbent administration and the leadership of both of our political parties, because 4 years ago conditions in Romania did not warrant such legislation. Today they do. I recently visited Romania, which is one of many visits begun initially in the 1930s, and I was delighted to see the degree to which the Country has become normalized, both economically and politically. I find it rather amusing that the gentleman from North Carolina who, as ambassador to Romania under the despicable dictatorship of Ceaucescu, year after year, in writing, certified that Romania should get most-favored-nation treatment, is now opposing the granting of permanent MFN status, which merely means normal trading relationships, for the people of Romania. I think it is important to underscore, Mr. Speaker, that recently elections were held in Romania with a fairly good turnout, much better than ours, and two-thirds of the voters voted against the incumbent government. What better proof that there is at least a modicum of political democracy vibrant in that country? Granting permanent MFN status to Romania will be a stepping stone to that country's entering the European Union and, eventually, NATO. As the founding Democratic chairman of the congressional Human Rights Caucus, I strongly urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take this significant step. The cold war is over. The Soviet Union no longer exists. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe gradually, haltingly, painfully are moving in the direction of democratic market economies. Romania has now reached the stage that they need encouragement and support. Across the political spectrum, Romanian political parties are urging us to approve this legislation. Every religious minority in Romania does so, as well. We should not let down the people of Romania.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, one of the profound successes of our Nation's foreign policy and one of the critical programs that has provided critical support for democracy and respect for human rights has been our Nation's farsighted educational and cultural exchange programs, which are administered through the U.S. Information Agency. Just a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations held an excellent oversight hearing on these vital programs. My colleagues on that committee from both sides of the political spectrum expressed strong bipartisan support for these essential educational and cultural exchange programs. Mr. Speaker, the Ambassador of the Czech Republic, His Excellency Michael Zantovsky, recently sent an excellent letter to Dr. Joseph Duffey, the outstanding Director of the U.S. Information Agency, expressing his and his country's enthusiastic support for the Fulbright Program. His letter is typical of the ardent support that has been expressed by many foreign leaders for the Fulbright Program and for other educational and cultural exchange programs administered by the USIA. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Ambassador Zantovsky's letter be placed in the Record and I urge my colleagues here in the Congress to give that letter thoughtful and serious consideration. The small amount of money that we spend on the Fulbright Program and on the other cultural and educational exchange programs under USIA is among the most important and worthwhile investments in our Nation's future. I urge my colleagues to join me in enthusiastic support for these programs. The Czech Ambassador, Washington, DC, June 25, 1996. Dr. Joseph Duffey, Director, U.S. Information Agency, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Duffey: It is my particular pleasure to inform you about the significance the Czech Republic attributes to the renowned Fulbright Program. Even before 1989, thanks to this Program, the then Czechoslovak scholars, experts, and students had a unique opportunity during their stay in your country to be exposed to a free democratic society, to the most recent advances in science, and to the creative environment of U.S. universities. After having come back home, they brought fresh, unworn ideas and approaches that transformed society and re-established democracy in our country. The Velvet Revolution brought enhancement to the Fulbright Program. Each year about twenty to thirty Fulbrighters come to the Czech Republic, and a similar number visit the United States. Many American professors coming to our country develop the fields of American Studies, American Literature, Economics, Political Science--i.e. areas that were rather weak or even missing under the previous regime. Their contribution to reforming university curricula is of critical importance. The American students within the Fulbright Program are extremely interested in our arts, history, and political economy in relation to privatization. On the other hand, Czech Fulbrighters in the U.S. are active in teaching the Czech language, literature, and film for many Slavic departments within your universities. At your prominent research institutions, many technically oriented Czech Fulbrighters benefit from developing their research projects and studies in physical, biological, and engineering sciences. Needless to say, the exchange of students and researchers is mutually beneficial. One's own professional and personal enrichment is surpassed by the enrichment of the society as a whole. Through an individual's encounter with a different culture, one gains an experiential knowledge of cultural conditions that impact very basic policies and questions-- e.g., how to establish future entrepreneurial activities and in what markets. In addition, Fulbrighters become consumers from within that society, gaining a practical level of intellect, the insight that cannot be replicated from reading a textbook or seeing a movie. And, most importantly, there is the multiplier effect because of their enthusiasm to share it with their colleagues and friends. The Czech Government, being aware of all the merits of the Fulbright Program and its outstanding significance among any other international programs, has decided to increase its funding up to 40% of the U.S. contribution. It is our strong belief that the U.S. Congress, taking into account all the benefits of this wonderful and unique educational and research program, will continue to support it at the current level. Sincerely, Michael Zantovsky, Ambassador.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to a beautiful poem, ``Helping the World,'' that was sent to me by an eight-year-old girl from my district. The author Lindsey Sedlack, is the great-grand-daughter of Ben Swig, a great humanitarian of the San Francisco Bay area and a longtime friend. Mr. Swig was a benefactor of my cause that needed help, including the Salvation Army and the Jewish Community Federation. This poem by his granddaughter embodies his humanitarian spirit. Lindsey's awareness of the social problems of our times, the love and sensitivity she brings to these issues and her dedication to make this world a better place for all of us gives us hope for the future. It is a young generation of multitalented individuals like Lindsey who will comprise the next generation of leaders. Mr. Speaker, I ask that her poem be included in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to encourge young leadership like Lindsey's. Helping the World (By Lindsey Sedlack) If I were wind, I would blow free. Wishing the world was as happy as me. I would carry seeds across the world, making flowers and plants for boys and girls. On hot summer days, I would make a cool breeze that would cool people down and russle through the leaves. I would blow all the war and fighting away wishing that only peace would stay. I wish that the homeless could have their own town. I wish that people would stop cutting trees down. I wish people would stop making animals extinct and would draw more pictures on paper with ink. If I were the wind I would blow free wishing the world was a happy as me.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the bipartisan legislation introduced by our colleagues, Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde and ranking member John Conyers, and to encourage the House to pass it unanimously. There is no more cowardly and offensive act than burning a community's place of worship. It is all the more unconscionable when it is done out of bigotry and hatred. This legislation will help the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ensure that justice will be swift and complete. Congress must make a strong proactive move to stop these burnings, bring the arsonists to justice, and help these communities rebuild. I extend my utmost sympathy to the ministers and their congregations all over the country who have lost their places of worship. I also call upon the victims of these terrible crimes to be strong and to direct your anger not toward revenge, but toward reconstruction and healing. As the only survivor of the Holocaust elected to Congress, I am all too familiar with the injustices of random, unprovoked acts of violence. We must use this opportunity to bare these extreme racists for who they are--unscrupulous criminals who deserve to be put in jail for a long time. It is imperative that we send a loud, clear, and firm message to the perpetrators of these sick crimes that Americans will not tolerate bigotry or hate crimes. It will take a concerted effort of every American from every region of the country to send the message that we must not slip back into a dark past when minorities lived in fear of intolerant racists. Mr. Speaker, let us lend our resources and wholehearted commitment to the Federal, State, and local authorities who are investigating this damaging epidemic. I urge my colleagues to unanimously support this legislation.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, George Soros, my good friend and the chairman of one of the largest and most widely praised philanthropic organizations in the world, put forth a very strong argument for postponing the Bosnian elections until there is stronger evidence that the goals set by the Dayton Accords for free and fair elections have been met. His op-ed, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal, makes a well-reasoned case for delaying the elections until indicted war criminals are arrested, freedom of movement is established, a free press exists, and lines of communication are opened between and within ethnic groups. The Soros foundation/Open Society Foundation is one of the primary philanthropic organization dedicated to promoting free societies throughout the world. George Soros has demonstrated his commitment to making the peace process work in Bosnia by pledging $15 million for TV broadcasting prior to the elections. These funds, in conjunction with the commitment of the United States and the world community, will be of enormous help in executing free and fair elections once preconditions are set. I urge my colleagues to read and consider Mr. Soros' insightful comments on this difficult issue that we must debate as the time for elections and the withdrawal of the implementation force troops draws near. [From the Wall Street Journal, May 29, 1996] Postpone the Bosnian Elections . . . (By George Soros) I am deeply committed to making the Dayton peace process work. My foundation, among its many projects, has prepared a $15 million plan for providing pluralistic TV broadcasting to most of Bosnia prior to the elections, and the U.S. and European governments have pledged substantial funds to turn the plan into reality. Yet I feel compelled to voice a protest against the impending decision of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to certify that conditions are suitable for holding ``free and fair'' elections in Bosnia by Sept. 14. immense pressure The OSCE head of mission in Bosnia, career U.S. diplomat Robert Frowick, has been under immense pressure from the U.S. government to issue the certification required under the Dayton agreement; two of his top aides have resigned in protest. The International Helsinki Federation issued a report on May 23 documenting that virtually none of the conditions spelled out in the Dayton agreement has been met: Indicted war criminals have not been arrested. Gen. Ratko Mladic is in charge of the Bosnian Serbe army, issues all orders and communicates with the NATO Implementation Force (IFOR) commander through an interpreter. Radovan Karadzic continues to dominate the political scene, sacking the prime minister of Republika Srpska, Rajko Kasagic, who was willing to cooperate with U.N. representative Carl Bildt, but as a sop to Mr. Bildt, Mr. Karadzic has now promised not to make any further public appearances. Freedom of movement remains severely restricted. Although official boundary checkpoints have been turned over to IFOR, they have been effectively replaced by mobile checkpoints, where the authorities representing all three ethnic factions routinely refuse to accept documents issued by the others. Signatures required to register political parties cannot be gathered across ethnic lines, hindering opposition parties seeking to attract a multiethnic constituency. For instance, the Liberal Democratic Party based in Sarajevo and the Social Liberal Party based in Banja Luka, which were united before the war and which are trying to form a common platform, cannot meet or even speak by telephone because of a lack of phone lines. Freedom of expression and independent broadcast and print media are virtually nonexistent in so-called Herzeg Bosna (a Croatian ethnic enclave within the Bosnian-Croatian Federation) and in Republika Srpska. The situation is somewhat better in Bosnian territory, with an independent press in cities such as Sarajevo, Tuzla and Zenica and with some independent local TV and radio stations. Under present conditions the three nationalist parties that rule their separate entities control the relevant media, giving them an unfair advantage. The media under their control continue to foment ethnic and religious hatred, in contradiction of the Dayton agreement. Freedom of association is severely repressed, leaving little chance for opposition parties to solidify support. The Helsinki Federation report cities specific instances. The failure of the international community to secure the return of refugees (only about 60,000 out of the estimated 2.4 million have returned), coupled with election rules that allow people to vote where they now live, will legitimize the results of ethnic cleansing. It is easy to understand what drives U.S. policy, but it is less easy to condone it. The timetable for the Bosnian elections is determined by the timetable for the withdrawal of IFOR troops, which is governed by the U.S. presidential election. President Clinton has of course made a commitment that U.S. troops would begin returning home by the end of the year. U.S. voters, who are so far removed from the problems of Bosnia and not well informed about the issues at stake, are primarily interested in whether the president will keep his word. To conduct early elections in Bosnia, it would have been necessary to arrest the indicted war criminals before the momentum of Dayton dissipated. But the military has been traumatized by its experience in Somalia, and the Pentagon refused to accept the mission. The Clinton administration put its faith in Slobodian Milosevic, but he could not or would not deliver. To order IFOR into action against the advice of the military would expose President Clinton to a pre-election risk that he is determined to avoid. But to persevere in the present course entails even bigger risks. Bosnia will set a precedent for the post-Cold War world. By insisting on going through with the elections we would breech the conditions of the Dayton peace plan we engineered, provide a blueprint for legitimating ethnic cleansing and undermine the principles of international law we sought to establish by creating the War Crimes Tribunal. further conflict Bosnia cannot be split into separate ethnic entities without further conflict. The Serbs have carved out a contiguous territory for themselves (although the area around Breko remains contested), and the Croat nationalists of Herzeg Bosna aim at no less. Even the military concedes that it would be easier to maintain its presence than to reintroduce troops after fighting has erupted again. The failure of the international community in Bosnia is already affecting the behavior of neighboring Yugoslavia and Croatia, and it will be a source of never-ending recrimination between the U.S. and Europe. President Clinton may be able to avoid Bosnia becoming an election issue, but it would surely haunt his second term in office.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, I received a letter from Dan Danieli. He is a writer who had recently completed a report regarding the life of Capt. Laszlo Ocskay. The investigative nature of Mr. Danieli's work has conclusively verified the importance of Captain Ocskay's role in saving the lives of thousands of Jews during the Holocaust. I rise today to recognize the incredible life of Captain Ocskay and his heroic efforts. Capt. Laszlo Ocskay performed an extraordinary humanitarian service for persecuted people during World War II that resulted in saving the lives of approximately 2,000 men, women, and children, mostly Jews, during the most vicious and murderous rampage of the Nazi in Budapest, Hungary. Despite numerous injuries that technically made him unfit for duty in the Hungarian Army, Captain Ocskay voluntarily reactivated himself. He rejoined the war efforts with the goal of using his position as the commander of the Forced Labor Service Unit to save the lives of those who suffered in forced labor. Testimonials obtained from numerous survivors of the Forced Labor Service Unit speak of his tireless efforts to improve their situation. He obtained food, medicine, and supplies for the Forced Labor Unit, which helped to boost the morale of the unit during the most catastrophic period from October 1944 to January 1945. Captain Ocskay provided the manpower from within the Forced Labor Service Unit to operate the International Red Cross ``Section T'' rescue unit which, in coordination with Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who saved tens of thousands of Hungarian Jews in the last days of World War II, performed heroic rescues and supplied food and medicine to children's homes and orphanages. He put his private home in the Benczur-Street at the disposal of the Section-T unit, hid a group of Jews in that house and on occasion provided Raoul Wallenberg a base of operation from which to perform his daring deeds. Wallenberg himself found refuge in the house during the very last days of the Russian siege of Budapest and left from there for his last fateful meeting with the Russians, from which he never returned. The post-war Communist political terror in Hungary made it impossible for any organized Hungarian effort to honor and recognize Ocskay's tremendous life-saving deeds. His aristocratic family background, the fact that he served in the Hungarian Army and his being an employee of an American corporation--Socony-Vacuum--made him subject to recurring harassment by the Hungarian Communists. He left for Austria and was harassed even there by the Soviets. As a result, no attempt was made in Hungary to honor or even to acknowledge Ocksay's heroic deeds of rescue. After the war, Captain Ocskay chose the United States of America as his sanctuary. There he lived a simple life with his son George, daughter-in-law Ilona and granddaughter Elisabeth. He died in March 1966 and was buried in Kingston, NY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to this righteous gentile who found sanctuary in our country, but no official recognition. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this extraordinary humanitarian who through his heroism, bravery and courage served as a symbol of light in a time of darkness and evil.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my colleagues to the serious case of ethnic discrimination and violation of human rights involving the effort to establish the University of Tetova in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Almost 2 years ago Professor Dr. Fadil Sulejmani filed formal documents with government officials in order to establish the University of Tetova in the city of Tetova in western Macedonia. Albanian intellectuals sought permission to establish the University because ethnic Albanians in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia face severe limitations in their efforts to receive a higher education. Ethnic Albanians comprise as much as 40 percent of the population of the country. The 1991 Yugoslav census reported that ethnic Albanians made up 20 percent of the population of the Republic of Macedonia, but Albanians and other specialists, including the United States Helsinki Commission, suggest that the proportion is considerably higher. Only two universities exist currently in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia--the Universities of Skopje and Bitola--and only 2 percent of Albanian young people are admitted to study at these two institutions. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, in the past Albanian young people had the opportunity to study at universities elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia--Prishtina, Zagreb, Ljubljana, and other universities. With the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, these opportunities are no longer available to ethnic Albanians from Macedonia. Clearly, finding additional opportunities for higher education for ethnic Albanian students is vitally important, and the establishment of the University of Tetova was intended to fill this important gap. What was the response when Professor Sulejmani attempted to establish a university for ethnic Albanians? The government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia failed to respond to the filing of formal documents for the establishment of the university. Government officials refused to discuss the issue with Professor Sulejmani-- despite repeated requests for dialogue. Because the government refused to consider the establishment of a university or even to discuss the matter with Albanian academic leaders, the university opened on December 14, 1994. The government responded by sending several hundred police officers, bulldozing one university building, jailing the faculty for 24 hours, and conducting a campaign of harassment and intimidation against the students. Mr. Speaker, just a few months later in February 1995, a delegation of Americans, including former Congressman Joseph DioGuardi of New York and Ms. Shirley Cloyes, visited the University of Tetova. They were joined by Mihajlo Mihajlov, a prominent anti-Communist dissident in the former Yugoslavia and now living in the United States. Just hours after the American delegation departed from Tetova, Albanian police authorities arrived at the buildings where the university was seeking to function. In the violence which they provoked, one individual was killed and twenty-eight others were wounded. Some twenty-five leading professors and students were arrested and imprisoned. Those who were imprisoned in this unnecessary show of force were subsequently released, but their travel documents were seized by police, and authorities refused permission to the Albanian academic leaders to travel and the professors and students remain subject to intimidation. Mr. Speaker, the action of the government in these cases is a cause of serious concern to me. The ethnic Albanian population of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia needs to have access to higher education, and Albanian academicians have sought to follow proper procedures in creating educational opportunities through establishing the University of Tetova. The government is using force and intimidation in an effort to repress the ethnic Albanian population of that country. Mr. Speaker, I can speak with some authority about the intransigence of the government officials on this issue. Three months ago, I invited Dr. Sulejmani, the Rector, and Professor Melaim Fejziu, the Vice Rector, of the University of Tetova to meet the Members of Congress to discuss this issue in Washington. Since the passports of both of these individuals were confiscated by government authorities, I also wrote to Macedonian President Kiro Gligorov requesting that the travel documents of these two Albanian academicians be returned to them so they could travel to the United States for meetings with me and other Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks after my invitation was received, I had a response from Dr. Sulejmani and Professor Fejziu expressing their interest in meeting with me and my colleagues in the Congress here in Washington. They expressed regret, however, that their passports had not been returned and said that they have been given no information about when they might be returned. I have not even had the courtesy of a response from the President of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. I know he has been recovering from an accident, but his staff presumably still functions, the Foreign Ministry presumably is still in operation. I am appalled and outraged that the government has failed to respond to my request and has even failed to give me the courtesy of a reply. Mr. Speaker, the United States is firmly and unequivocally committed to human rights, to the full exercise of civil rights by all peoples, and we are equally committed to opposing discrimination on the basis of ethnic, religious, racial or other grounds. I sincerely urge the government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to moderate its policies and permit the University of Tetova to go forward. I commend the outstanding effort by Dr. Sulejmani and his colleagues, and I invite my colleagues to join in applauding this endeavor.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on April 16, Members of Congress, members of the Diplomatic Corps and hundreds of survivors of the Holocaust and their friends gathered here in the Capitol Rotunda for the National Days of Remembrance commemoration. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council was established by Congress to preserve the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. I commend the Council and the members of the Days of Remembrance Committee, chaired by my good friend Benjamin Meed, for their vigilant and genuine adherence to their extraordinarily important task. One of the first acts of the Council was to establish the annual Days of Remembrance commemoration to mirror similar observances held in Israel and throughout our Nation and elsewhere in the world. This year, the commemoration centered on the 50th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials. The observance was a reminder of the difficult process of first coping and then healing that all survivors and their families and loved ones had to endure. Rabbi Alexander Schindler's benediction closed the commemoration with a reminder of the tragedy that we must not forget. In his typically elegant prose, his prayer instructed us how to turn remembrance into strength, how to turn sadness and horror into hope for a better future. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to read Rabbi Schindler's prayer and hear his frank but hopeful words of wisdom. Prayer Offered by Rabbi Schindler, Holocaust Commemoration Once again, a sacred hour of remembrance summons us to these time-hallowed halls. Not that we really need such an occasion lest we forget. We need no reminders. We remember too well. Memories come * * * to interrupt our sleep * * * to still our laughter * * * to fill our silence with the voices of the past. Oh, would that we could forget. But quick forgetting is not the reality of a people who lost one-third of their number in half a decade; Who lost one and one-half million of their children, during those tear-stained years. No, we cannot, we will not, forget these martyrs. All those who perished through the cruelty of the oppressor. Not punished for any individual guilt, but indiscriminately, Men and women * * * Young and old * * * The learned and the simple * * * Were ``driven in multitudes along the road of pain and pitiless death.'' They lie in nameless graves. Their places of everlasting sleep are not known to us. Yet we will not forget them. We take them into our hearts and give them a place beside the treasured memories of our own beloved. May their remembrance give us the strength To turn from death to life, To love where others hate, To hope where others despair, To retain our belief in humankind and in the conviction that, In spite of everything, there is meaning in life and in human history. Thus will we give substance to the words of our tradition, those words which we repeat six million times--and more. Yitgadal, V'yitkadash sh'mey rabba * * * Magnified and sanctified be thy Name of God.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on April 16, Members of Congress, members of the Diplomatic Corps, and hundreds of survivors of the Holocaust and their friends gathered here in the Capitol Rotunda for the National Days of Remembrance commemoration. The United States Holocaust Memorial Council was established by Congress to preserve the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. I commend the Council and the members of the Days of Remembrance Committee, chaired by my good friend Benjamin Meed, for their vigilant and genuine adherence to their extraordinarily important task. One of the first acts of the Council was to establish the annual Days of Remembrance commemoration to mirror similar observances held in Israel and throughout our Nation and elsewhere in the world. This year, the commemoration centered on the 50th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials. The observance was a reminder of the difficult process of first coping and then healing that all survivors and their families and loved ones had to endure. Father Robert J. Drinan, our former colleague and a great friend, delivered a characteristically moving and meaningful invocation to this commemoration. In his current capacity has a professor of law at Georgetown University, Father Drinan continues his outspoken support for human rights throughout the world that he was so well known for in his 10 distinguished years in Congress. His prayer at the National Day of Remembrance commemoration set a tone for a commemoration with a dual purpose. First, to be thankful for the end of the Holocaust that came with the Nuremberg trials, and second, to give a stern warning to citizens of the world that the Holocaust must never be forgotten and that crimes against humanity cannot be ignored or go unpunished. I commend my colleagues' attention to the remarks of our distinguished former colleague: Invocation by Robert F. Drinan, S.J. Let us pray. Oh God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, we thank you for humanity's first denunciation 50 years ago of crimes against humanity. We express our gratitude oh Lord to all those who have publicized and prosecuted crimes against peace like those punished at Nuremberg. We beseech you, oh God of justice, to keep alive in our souls that horror of genocide which has permeated the world in the last five decades. Inspire us, Oh God of love, to remember at all times that silence is the one unforgivable sin. Impart your benediction, Oh Lord of the universe, on the leaders of the Holocaust Memorial, on members of the Congress and on all here present. We stand here oh Lord as your children and ask your forgiveness for our past inaction and indeed our complicity with evil. We pray, Oh God, that the grace of this unforgettable occasion will deepen our determination to protect the precious rights of every child of God in the entire universe. This we ask in your name and with your help. Amen.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to a superb op-ed in Friday's Washington Post which discusses the importance of freedom of the press in the former Yugoslavia. The author, my good friend and prominent journalist Kati Marton, has for many years been one of the leading spokespersons for press freedom and for open societies. Freedom of the press in the United States was enshrined in the very first amendment to the Constitution, as it was recognized as the cornerstone of a true democracy. Indeed, it was the circulation of revolutionary literature that spurred the War of Independence and rallied popular support for democracy. A lasting democracy in Bosnia, where violations of freedom of the press are most acute, is only possible with a free press. Such freedom is necessary in the upcoming elections there so that Bosnians can make an informed choice. Kati Marton's observations during her 10-day trip to Bosnia reveal the importance of United States support for such freedom. Kati chairs the Committee to Protect Journalists and possesses many insights on the Bosnian situation. Her husband, Richard Holbrooke, was the chief negotiator of the Dayton Accords. Mr. Speaker, I ask that her article be included in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to consider her insightful remarks. [From the Washington Post, May 31, 1996] Key to the Balkans: A Free Press (By Kati Marton) They don't shoot reporters--or even jail them anymore--in postwar former Yugoslavia. Today the authoritarian governments of the Balkans use more subtle measures to control the media. After a 10-day fact-finding trip to Sarajevo, Belgrade and Zagreb and talks with the leaders of all three countries, I am convinced a healthy democratic opposition will not take root here without stronger Western pressure on Serb, Croatian and Bosnian leaders. All three leaders--Slobodan Milosevic, Franjo Tudjman and Alija Izetbegovic--promised to uphold the right to free speech and free press in Dayton, but all three are falling far short of delivering on that promise. The Balkan media's plight goes much further than the issue of the population's legitimate rights of free speech and free press. It was the media in Belgrade, Zagreb and, to a much lesser degree, Sarajevo that fueled the ethnic passions that unleashed the war. It is now essential for the security of Europe and the United States that we insist on the establishment of free media in Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia. The situation is most critical in Bosnia. In September, nationwide elections will be held that will anchor the fragile new entity of Bosnia-Herzegovina to a new central government. Without a free press, the dream of reviving a multi-ethnic society after years of savage violence will fade. Although the guns that killed 45 reporters during the war are quiet now, it is still too dangerous for Bosnian journalists to cover more than a sliver of the country. The brave ones who try come back shaken from the experience, with stories of being pulled off the road when Serb militia loyal to the indicted war criminal who still heads the Bosnia Serbs--Radovan Karadzic--spotted their Sarajevo plates and hauled them in for ``questioning.'' In Bosnia, as elsewhere, television is how most people get their news. What limited television there is (only one of nine transmitters survived the war) is under the control of President Alija Izetbegovic's ruling party. This makes it difficult for opposition candidates such as former prime minister Haris Silajdic to get their message out in the election campaign. Ironically, Radio Free Europe, deemed a relic of the Cold War elsewhere and never before heard in Yugoslavia, has become the most popular radio in Bosnia--as close as most people think they'll get to the straight story. In Belgrade and Zagreb, independent media are controlled by the use of ``financial police'' government accountants who swoop down on opposition press and find their bookkeeping wanting. On April 25, such ``accountants'' swept into the office of the Croatian weekly Panorama and ordered all staff to leave in 25 minutes. The magazine remains shut. The reason: alleged ``failure to meet technical, health and ecological standards necessary for operating.'' When I asked President Tudjman why his government is suing another independent paper, Novi List, for a ruinous sum, Tudjman ordered an aid to fetch the cover of the satiric weekly, Feral Tribune, which featured Tudjman's face atop Rambo's body. ``Would any other world leader put up with this?'' he asked. ``All leaders in democracies,'' I replied; but without much effect on him. Another technique both Milosevic and Tudjman use to quiet the voices of dissent is to claim that formerly state- controlled media were ``improperly privatized.'' Using that device, Serbian police entered Belgrade's Studio B and pulled the plug. Now all Serb television is under Milosevic's control. But Milosevic assured me, revealingly, that he has instructed the media to tamp down their former anti-Muslim and anti-Groat fervor and get behind the Dayton Accords. Milosevic also controls newsprint, the life blood of newspapers, and thus manipulates the independent dailies' circulation. Nasa Borba, the only major independent daily in Serbia, struggles to reach more than 10,000 readers, whereas Politika, the pro-Milosevic paper, never suffers from a newsprint shortage and reaches 300,000 readers. To go from Nasa Borba's shabby offices to Politika's high-tech home, bristling with security men, is to understand the effective uses of press control in Serbia. Politika's colorful editor, Hadji Antic, who described his editorial policy as ``inclined toward the official story,'' said if the other papers have circulation problems it's because they're no good. But the Balkan leaders are not the implacable dictators of the past. There are many pressure points. Serbia badly wants the remaining sanctions lifted. Bosnia, the real victim in the war, as well as Serbia and Croatia, need Western investment, IMF loans, European Union membership and respectability. In their need is our opportunity. A price must be enacted for all those things, and part of that price should be the one ingredient that separates a democracy from every other form of government; a free press.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on April 16, Members of Congress, members of the Diplomatic Corps, and hundreds of survivors of the Holocaust and their friends gathered here in the Capitol Rotunda for the National Days of Remembrance commemoration. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council was established by Congress to preserve the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. I commend the Council and the members of the Days of Remembrance Committee, chaired by my good friend, Benjamin Meed, for their vigilant and genuine adherence to their extraordinarily important task. One of the first acts of the Council was to establish the annual Days of Remembrance commemoration to mirror similar observances held in Israel and throughout our Nation and elsewhere in the world. This year, the commemoration centered on the 50th anniversary of the Nuremburg trials. The observance was a reminder of the difficult process of first coping and then healing that all survivors and their families and loved ones had to endure. I invite my colleagues to read Benjamin Meed's excellent welcoming remarks. Ben Meed is the most prominent and effective force for keeping the lessons and the memories of the Holocaust alive in the United States. We are extremely fortunate that this highly competent individual has committed his life to this important task, and in particular to organizing the annual National Days of Remembrance commemoration. I ask that Ben Meed's remarks be inserted into the Record. Welcoming Remarks by Benjamin Meed, Chairman, Days of Remembrance Members of the Diplomatic Corps, distinguished Members of Congress, Honorable members of the Holocaust Memorial Council, Fellow Survivors, Dear Friends. When Congress created the United States Holocaust Memorial Council in 1980, there were only a few Yom Hashoah observances held in communities of Holocaust survivors living in this country. You, the Members of Congress, entrusted us, the members of the Council, with the responsibility of teaching American citizens about the Holocaust. We have complied with your mandate by building the Holocaust Memorial Museum, which most of you have visited, and by leading the nation in annual civic commemorations, known as the Days of Remembrance. I am privileged to tell you that now, during this week of Holocaust Remembrance, more than a million people from all the states of our great Union will come together in Memory. We are joined by Governors, Mayors and community leaders as well as professors, teachers and schoolchildren. Earlier today, the entire nation of Israel stopped and stood silent in Remembrance. We are together in dedication to Memory and aspiration for Peace. Over the past fifteen years that we have gathered to commemorate in this Rotunda, we have observed an anniversary--the fiftieth year of a milestone event: the Night of Broken Glass, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the encounter between American soldiers and Holocaust survivors. This year we confront the anniversary of the aftermath of the Holocaust: what happened as we survivors attempted to rebuild our lives. This was not an easy thing to do. It was years before we could ask a policeman for directions. Why? Because he was wearing a uniform. For a long time, it took courage just to answer a knock on the front door. It is true that we looked to the future in hope, but the shadows of the past remained. And so we dedicated our lives to Remembrance--remembrance of all those for whom the future had been destroyed by the Shoah. Rebuilding because a central concern for the world-- rebuilding a Europe devastated by war; rebuilding the shattered image of humanity in a world of Auschwitz, Belzec and Treblinka. America understood the necessity of encouraging the European nations to work together for economic recovery. Thus the Marshall Plan was implemented, and the groundwork for the Europe of today was laid. The Allied leaders also realize that to build a sound future, there had to be an accounting for crimes so great as to be unparalleled in recorded history. Nuremberg, the city where Nazi party pageants had been held, the place where the Nuremberg Laws were promulgated and the German legal system became an accomplice to mass murder, was chosen as the site for the first, joint International Military Tribunal. In its charter, three forms of crimes were specified. Two of them were ancient, but one was unprecedented. Crimes against the peace and war crimes were familiar terms to all of us, but Crimes Against Humanity was a new category. It described mass murder and extermination, enslavement and deportation based on racial, religious, or political affiliation. Through the proceedings of the Nuremberg Trials, we came to know the perpetrators. Documents that the killers had so carefully created were gathered and studied. In the defense testimony of accused doctors, judges and industrial leaders as well as military generals, Einsatzgruppen commanders, and concentration camp commandants, the world learned ``how the crimes were committed.'' We also learned that tens of thousands of ordinary Germans from all walks of life had willingly participated in the annihilation process. Ironically, those on trial pled not guilty to the charges, they did not claim innocence. Rather, they attempted to shift the burden of responsibility to those of higher rank. Was justice achieved? Certainly not! For what meaning can justice have in a world of Mydanek, Chelmo and Sobibor? What punishment is appropriate for the crimes? Still, the attempt to speak of justice was important. It was a way of setting limits, of saying there are crimes so evil and so enormous that civilizations itself is on trial. For such crimes, there must be punishment. For many years at hundreds of commemorations around the world, we have pleaded Zuchor--Remember--Remember the children of Teresienstadt. Remember the fighters of Warsaw. Remember the poets of Vilna. Remember all of our lost loved ones. Today, let us also not forget the killers. Let us not forget their evil and their infamy. Let us not forget them because they express what happens to the power of government and the majesty of legal systems that become detached from moral values and humane goals. The same powers that heal and help can also humiliate and decimate. There is a difference; there must be a difference; and you and I must make sure that we make a difference. With these words, here in this great Hall of democracy, let us recommit ourselves to the principals of justice and liberty for all--and to Remembrance--now and forever.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on April 16, Members of Congress, members of the Diplomatic Corps and hundreds of survivors of the Holocaust and their friends gathered here in the Capitol Rotunda for the National Days of Remembrance commemoration. The United States Holocaust Memorial Council was established by Congress to preserve the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. I commend the Council and the members of the Days of Remembrance Committee, chaired by my good friend Benjamin Meed, for their vigilant and genuine adherence to their extraordinarily important task. One of the first acts of the Council was to establish the annual Days of Remembrance commemoration to mirror similar observances held in Israel and throughout our Nation and elsewhere in the world. This year, the commemoration centered on the 50th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials. The observance was a reminder of the difficult process of first coping and then healing that all survivors and their families and loved ones had to endure. I commend my colleagues' attention to the insightful comments of my good friend Miles Lerman. Miles was instrumental in bringing the dream of the Holocaust Memorial Museum to reality, an immense project that is universally regarded as a resounding success. As Chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, Miles is appointed by the President to coordinate our national effort to memorialize the victims of the Holocaust and to teach all Americans its many lessons. His words at the National Days of Remembrance commemoration are a demonstration of his outstanding ability to carry out this important task. Days of Remembrance Ceremony (By Miles Lerman) Distinguished Dignitaries, Honorable Members of Congress, ladies and gentlemen. The theme of this year's days of remembrance is the 50th anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials. What makes these trials so significant is the fact that the Allied Forces after victory did not pursue vengeance. Instead they chose to implement a due process of law to hold the German political and military leaders personally accountable for the heinous crimes they committed against humanity. We will hear more of those trial proceedings from Justice Breyer, who will analyze the uniqueness of the Nuremberg trials and place them in the proper historic prospective. I will, therefore, concentrate my remarks on the importance of remembrance. Remembrance serves many purposes. It helps us look back and wonder how different the fate of Holocaust victims would have been if the Western leaders of those days would have had the stamina at the outset to stand up to Adolph Hitler--a political megalomaniac whose appetite for territorial expansion was unsatiated; whose wild dream of developing a Deutsche heren rasse--a German super race which would enslave all nations he would conquer and create a Third Reich that would last a thousand years. This insanity could have been stopped in time but it was not. The leaders of Britain and France wanted to believe that they could reason with Adolph Hitler and thus continued to give in to his constantly escalating demands until they finally came to realize that they were dealing with a monster that must be subdued at any price. By this time, however, Hitler had managed to build a powerful war machine which took enormous sacrifices on the part of all Allied Armies who waged battles from the desserts of Africa to Leningrad and Normandy to defeat the Nazi monster. It took 6 years of bloody battles with millions of casualties and billions of dollars of military equipment to put an end to the Nazi nightmare that could have been stopped at a much earlier stage. It is a myth--it is a falsehood to believe that only Hitler and his SS henchmen were the ones who were responsible for the mass murder. In the Archives of the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, we have documents proving that the entire industrial complex of Nazi Germany was involved in the process of mass annihilation. We have documents of German engineering firms praising the efficiency of the crematories they are offering for sale. We have copies of authentic bids from German chemical companies soliciting the orders for the Cyclone B gas enunciating the economic efficiency of their product for the mass killing of women and children. We dwell on this past not to inflame fury, but because we believe that in the ashes of this tragic past lies an all important lesson essential to our collective future as a democratic and free society where human differences are respected and human rights are protected. This is what the Holocaust Memorial Museum is all about. When the Nazi nightmare was finally brought to an end, the world chose to believe that the lessons of this horrible period would once and for all put an end to hatred and bigotry. Today, 50 years later, we must admit that we were naively optimistic. The sad facts are, the world has not learned its lesson. Once again, we are confronted with savageries of the worst kind all over the world. Futile ethnic cleansings and senseless carnage are still rampant. Not only in the distant places such as former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, but the venom of hatred and bigotry has embedded itself even in the heartland of America. This phenomena should be of great concern to all of us. There are, however, those who argue not to pay too much attention to these crackpots because they are only a marginal fringe of our democratic society. So permit me to invoke memory and remind you that the same arguments were heard in Germany in the early 30's when Hitler began his quest for power. Today we are beginning to see more and more blatant disregard and lack of respect for the sanctity of martyrdom. Let me cite to you just two examples. Only recently have we learned that Franjo Tudjman, the President of Croatia, has announced plans to bring to Jasenovac the bones of the Croatian Ustashis. The Ustashis were Hitler's most willing collaborators. Today, President Tudjman wants to mingle the bones of the Ustashis killers with the bones of victims whom they have murdered in Jasenovac. Jasenovac is the largest death camp of Yugoslavia where tens of thousands of victims are buried in mass graves. This proposed callous desecration of the Jasenovac Memorial cannot be permitted to happen. I have conveyed to President Tudjman our outrage over this defilement and have advised him that the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council will not remain silent until these evil plans are scrapped. Another example is Auschwitz. In Auschwitz, plans were in the making to build a shopping center only 100 yards away from the camp perimeter. Again, we expressed our dismay, we intervened and protested--this time successfully. I am pleased to inform you that I have received written confirmation from Polish Ambassador, Jerzy Kozminsky, that the development of the shopping center within the confines of Auschwitz has been canceled. The Polish authorities are to be commended for putting a stop to what would have been a painful desecration of memory. The Nuremberg trials teach us that we cannot remain indifferent; we cannot look the other way when evil plans are in the making; when atrocities take place and the truth is distorted. We must always be ready to speak out against evil no matter where it takes place--and no matter who the victims are. The victims of the Nazi inferno deserve the dignity of being left in peace and we at the Holocaust Memorial Council are determined to do all that is in our power to make sure that the ashes of the victims remain undefiled and undisturbed. This is our sacred task that we must fulfill today, tomorrow and in years to come.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on April 16, Members of Congress, members of the diplomatic corps and hundreds of survivors of the Holocaust and their friends gathered here in the Capitol Rotunda for the National Days of Remembrance commemoration. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council was established by Congress to preserve the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. I commend the Council and the members of the Days of Remembrance Committee, chaired by my good friend Benjamin Meed, for their vigilant and genuine adherence to their extraordinarily important task. One of the first acts of the Council was to establish the annual Days of Remembrance commemoration to mirror similar observances held in Israel and throughout our Nation and elsewhere in the world. This year, the commemoration centered on the 50th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials. The observance was a reminder of the difficult process of first coping and then healing that all survivors and their families and loved ones had to endure. Our colleague from the other body, Senator Christopher Dodd, made a memorable speech at this historic ceremony. The Senator draws upon the personal experience of his father, Thomas Dodd, who served as a prosecutor at Nuremberg, to chronicle the extraordinary task of bringing the story of the World War II to light while being true to the cause of justice. At a time when the rest of the world looked to Nuremberg with the most passionate of feelings, Thomas Dodd was enlisted to ignore his feelings in the course of his prosecution so that the Nazi war criminals would have the chance to defend themselves that none of their victims had. I invite my colleagues to read Senator Dodd's remarks and gain a full appreciation of the accomplishments of Thomas Dodd and the trials of Nuremberg. Days of Remembrance (By Senator Christopher J. Dodd) I stand before you today not only as a Senator and an American, but more profoundly as the son of Thomas Dodd: A man who in the summer of 1945 left my mother, myself and my four brothers and sisters and journeyed to a place called Nuremberg. My father wasn't asked to shoulder a rifle, fly a plane, or parachute beyond enemy lines. His responsibility was not to fellow soldiers or officers. My father went to Nuremberg as a prosecutor with a solemn obligation to the victims and the survivors of Nazi atrocities, to see justice prevail over inhumanity. And, I stand here before you today to bear witness to my father's experiences at the Nuremberg tribunals 50 years ago. Growing up as a child, my father often spoke to his family about his time in Germany and what he learned of the Holocaust. The particulars: Goering and Goebbels, Auschwitz and Dachau were peoples and places with which I became intimately familiar. I knew far more about the events of the Holocaust than most people of my generation because my father wanted his children to learn and never forget. Today, on this day of remembrance I think back to those early lessons and what my father might say if he were with us today. My father left Nuremberg with a greater fervor for the need to uphold freedom and human rights and to speak out against intolerance, and injustice wherever it may rear its head. The fifteen months he spent prosecuting Nazi war criminals defined the type of public person he would become and dictated the issues that he so passionately fought for throughout his life. The struggles at Nuremberg were not easy ones. My father and all those who were there, were burdened with a grave responsibility: To not only punish the guilty but to also reassure the survivors that future generations would never forget the atrocities. While these represented arduous challenges, my father and his colleagues at Nuremberg understood their obligations. During the fifteen months my father spent in Nuremberg he wrote to my mother every single day. In one particularly poignant letter, he said: ``Sometimes a man knows his duty, his responsibility so clearly, so surely he cannot hesitate--he does not refuse it. Even great pain and other sacrifices seem unimportant in such a situation. The pain is no less for this knowledge--but the pain has a purpose at least.'' And the pain certainly had a purpose. Because whatever its legacy on international law, the Nuremberg tribunal permanently enshrined into international diplomacy the notion that the hand of vengeance ultimately would be steadied by the rule of law. After the surrender of Germany and once the ghastly atrocities of the Holocaust had been revealed to the world there was a natural impulse to lash out in vengeance. Some leaders, such as Winston Churchill called for the immediate execution of Nazi leaders, without trial. In a sense this furor was quite understandable. But, at Nuremberg, the United States and her Allies ended this war the way they had fought it, by embodying. What Abraham Lincoln called, ``The better angels of our nature.'' When millions of innocent Jews were jammed into boxcars on the way to the railroad sidings at Auschwitz, Treblinka and Dachau to be selected for extermination they weren't granted the right of due process; they weren't granted the right to defend themselves. For them, there was no justice, only a ``final solution'' in the crematoriums and gas chambers of the Nazis. But at Nuremberg, the allies recognized that the only true antidote to the savagery of the Nazis was justice. That's why at Nuremberg defendants were given the right to defend themselves. That's why at Nuremberg they were able to choose their own legal representation. That's why at Nuremberg they were given the right to speak on their own behalf. And that's why at Nuremberg three of the defendants were acquitted. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in describing these actions: ``That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason.'' Recently, looking through my father's letters, I came across a wonderful anecdote from that time. After only a few weeks in Germany, my father had the opportunity to go to a baseball game at the very same stadium where, in my father's words, ``Hitler corrupted and misled the youth of Germany.'' But on that day, in the summer of 1945, the voices of evil that had once reverberated in Nuremberg were replaced by the sounds of 40,000 Americans doing the ``most American of things'';--watching a baseball game. Something as wholesome as baseball is, I believe, a wonderful metaphor for the triumph of American optimism and American ideals over the forces of Nazism. At Nuremberg, America's commitment to the ideals enshrined in our Constitution remained intact even in the face of unspeakable horror. My father felt very deeply that this is the ultimate legacy of Nuremberg; our triumph in arms led to the triumph of our ideals. And as we gather to remember the lessons of Nuremberg 50 years later, I know that if my father were here it is the legacy of the international rule of law that would be paramount in his mind. In closing, I want all of you to take a brief look at this beautiful setting: The Rotunda of the Nation's Capitol, the home of the world's greatest democracy. The ideals that America so brightly represents; freedom, equality, the rule of law and the rights of man find shelter in these halls. It was those principles that served as lodestars for my father and the many participants at Nuremberg. And in this time of remembrance, it is those standards that we must commemorate because they represent the true moral and ethical ideals that we defended 50 years ago and which we must continue to strive for as a nation and as a people.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the observance of Memorial Day. This day we pause from our busy schedules to honor those who have given their lives defending our freedom in the line of duty. A small stone market at Omaha Beach Cemetery echoes our gratitude with this simple but powerful acknowledgement. ``To these we owe our highest resolve, that the cause for which they died, we shall live.'' The efforts of the men and women who valiantly served our country here and abroad to preserve peace and liberty deserve our highest recognition. Whether we observe this occasion through ceremony or prayer, Memorial Day leaves few hearts unmoved. From the remote places of Argonne, Normandy, Inchon, Da Nang, and Kuwait City, Americans have shed their blood so that others might live in peace, without fear of tyranny and aggression. We have an obligation to remember the names and the deeds of the Americans who paid the price for our freedom. The courage and valor shown by the men and women who have served our country is symbolized by the plethora of monuments and memorials, each commemorating the deeds of untold numbers of Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. For those who have died and for those who are still missing, we pause to reflect and hopefully to learn. For us, the living, the beneficiaries of their sacrifices, the responsibility rests in our hands. History teaches us that those who were willing to give their lives for freedom and democracy, do so for a cause more important than life. We are proud of those who have served our Nation. Today we remember so that future generations will never forget.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy has for many years provided an invaluable forum for discussion of difficult issues facing the Middle East. Last Tuesday, the Institute invited Secretary Christopher to discuss the very urgent and ongoing problem of terrorism. As we rejoice at the magnificent progress in the peace process, we are saddened and frustrated by the vicious terrorist attacks which are carried out by an unyielding and elusive extremist minority. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to read Secretary Christopher's thoughtful remarks and productive suggestions as to how the United States can play a stronger role in bringing these attacks to an end. Fighting Terrorism: Challenges for the Peacemakers Thank you very much, Mike. It is a real pleasure to speak again at The Washington Institute. Under the leadership of Mike Stein, Barbi Weinberg, and Rob Satloff, the Institute has continued to excel as an invaluable forum for the discussion of U.S. policy in the Middle East. I should say that the Institute has been a reservoir for talent as well. Any organization that could help cultivate the likes of Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, and John Hannah has got to be doing something right. Sometimes I think that the State Department owes you a finder's fee. As Mike mentioned, I last spoke at the Institute in October 1993, soon after Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat shook hands on the White House lawn and forever changed the course of Middle East history. Since then, much has happened. Israel and Jordan are at peace. Palestinians defied the Hamas call to boycott elections and in doing so gave their clear mandate for peace. Today, they govern themselves in Gaza and most cities in the West Bank. The Palestinian National Council voted overwhelmingly to make good on its commitment to cancel the egregious provisions of its charter. Economic summits have been held in Casablanca and Amman. Eight members of the Arab League have made official visits to Israel, and-- with the exception of Libya, Iraq, and Sudan--every Arab League member has participated in some aspect of the peace process. Had I predicted these events in 1993, you probably would have said that I needed a long rest. The scope and pace of change has truly been breathtaking. It has come so fast that what was previously unthinkable is now routine. In the face of difficult challenges, it is easy to forget how dramatically the peace process has already transformed the landscape of the Middle East. As we move forward, we must remember the enormous progress we have made. None of the challenges we now face is more pressing than the fight against terrorism. Terrorism destroys innocent lives. It undermines a society's sense of security--and with it the very foundation upon which a lasting peace must be built. As such, terrorism is a threat to our national interests--not simply in the Middle East, but around the world. President Clinton has rightly identified terrorism as one of the most important security challenges we face in the wake of the Cold War. As he said in his address to the United Nations last October, terrorism today is a world-wide phenomenon. No one is immune. Certainly not Israel. But also not Egypt. Or Japan. Or France, Britain, or Germany. Or Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, or Algeria. And, unfortunately, not America, where terrorists have struck from lower Manhattan to Oklahoma City. As if the threat is not already severe enough, we now face an even more alarming danger: the terrorist armed with weapons of mass destruction. Last year's nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway system was a grim omen. It was also a wakeup call for the world. The threat is real. We must act now to meet it. the United States is leading the way. Last month, the President signed into law landmark anti-terrorism legislation. This bill provides law enforcement with new tools to stop terrorists before they strike and to bring them to justice when they do. It strengthens our ability to prevent international terrorists from raising funds in the United States. And while ensuring legal safeguards, it allows us quickly to expel foreigners who provide support for terrorist activities. The United States has also spearheaded efforts to combat terrorism on a global level. We have imposed strong sanctions against states that sponsor or harbor terrorists. We have intensified our counter-terrorism cooperation with other countries, allowing us to apprehend key figures in attacks like the World Trade Center bombing. Last December, with our partners in the G-7 and Russia, we convened a ministerial meeting in Ottawa to develop common strategies for fighting terror. And in April, President Clinton joined President Yeltsin and other leaders in Moscow, where they agreed on new steps to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands. Nowhere in the world has America's leadership in the fight against terror been more evident than in the Middle East. We have maintained UN sanctions against Libya for its role in the bombing of Pan-Am 103. And we are working to increase pressure on Sudan for its support of last June's assassination attempt against Egypt's President Mubarak. America's most critical role, however--and the one I want to focus on today--is defending the Middle East peace process and the peacemakers against the vicious attacks of their enemies. Terrorists and their supporters are now engaged in a systematic assault on Israel and the peace process. Their goal is clear: They seek to kill the very possibility of peace by destroying every Israeli's sense of personal security. The enemies of peace are escalating their attacks for a very clear reason: the peace process is succeeding. With every step toward peace that Israel and her neighbors take, the enemies of peace grow more desperate and more determined to lash out. They must promote fear because they know that hope is their undoing. The United States is determined to ensure that the enemies of peace do not succeed. We will never give in to their terror. We refuse to allow terrorists to undermine our resolve or divert us from our goal of a real, secure, and lasting peace for Israel and for all the peoples of the Middle East. When Israel was terrorized by a wave of suicide bombings in February and March, President Clinton responded by organizing the Sharm el-Sheikh summit. Literally overnight, leaders from around the world answered his call to join Israel--not to celebrate another breakthrough in the peace process, but to defend the peace process at a moment of crisis. It was an unprecedented event that sent an unmistakable message: The enemies of peace are doomed. Their terror will only strengthen our resolve to complete the circle of peace and put them out of business for good. Sharm el-Sheikh launched a process to expand joint efforts against terrorism throughout the region. Most recently, President Clinton and Prime Minister Peres signed a new anti- terrorism accord that will strengthen cooperation between our two governments. In addition, the United States is providing Israel with more than $100 million in anti-terrorism equipment and training. We have also begun to bolster the counter-terrorism capabilities of the Palestinian Authority. With our support, Israeli and Palestinian security services are now cooperating in a joint campaign to root out the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian forces have intercepted many suicide bombers. They have uncovered explosives and arms caches. They have arrested, tried, and imprisoned perpetrators of acts and continue to hunt down others. Chairman Arafat today clearly understands that he must give a 100 percent effort in the war on terror--and not just because his agreements with Israel require it. He is doing it because he knows that the bombs of Hamas and Islamic Jihad are trying to destroy Palestinian aspirations as much as they are Israeli lives. The United States will continue to insist that this increased Palestinian effort is sustained. Like Hamas before it, Hizbollah's purpose in last month's attacks in Lebanon was also to kill the peace process. As hostilities escalated, America's responsibility and interests were clear: To use our influence to stop the suffering of innocent civilians, to end the crisis, and to create a new framework to limit the chances of it happening again. The agreement that resulted from my shuttle mission achieved those objectives. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis and Lebanese have been able to return to their homes. New, written understandings have been reached to contain the dangers of any hostilities. An international effort will be mounted to assist in Lebanon's reconstruction. And we are organizing a Monitoring Group in which Israel, Lebanon, and Syria are being brought together for the first time to help prevent another crisis. This recent campaign of violence has again shone the spotlight on a disturbing reality: When it comes to terrorism against the peace process, Iran is playing a leading role. Iran's leaders regularly use rhetoric that incites terrorism. President Rafsanjani called Prime Minister Rabin's assassination ``divine vengeance.'' And just prior to the Hamas bombing spree, Iran's Supreme Leader, Khameini, preached that ``The power of Islam will ultimately bring about the end of the rootless Zionist regime * * * which must be destroyed.'' Iran has not stopped at rhetoric. It frequently meets with all the major terrorist groups--including Hizbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the PFL-PGC. It actively encourages these groups to use terror to destroy the peace process. It provides them with money--up to several million dollars a year in the case of Hamas, Islamic, Jihad, and others; and up to $100 million a year for Hizbollah. Iran also supplies them with arms and material support, training, and--in some cases--operational guidance. The evidence has grown in recent months. In advance of Israel's elections, Iranian-trained terrorists have been sent to infiltrate Israel and the Palestinian territories. Some have been intercepted. Others narrowly failed in carrying out their deadly activities. Still others have succeeded in their murderous missions. We believe that an Iranian-backed group was responsible for last week's drive-by shooting of an Israeli-American yeshiva student in the West Bank. In another case, Belgium intercepted a shipment containing a mortar, which came from Iran and was probably intended for an attack on a Jewish target in Europe. There should no longer be any debate about Iran's involvement in terrorism against the peace process. German Foreign Minister Kinkel left no doubt that in remarks he made here in Washington just two weeks ago. He said that Germany is ``fully aware of the evil things that Iran has been doing and is still doing.'' He went on to say that ``[T]he Americans and the Germans agree as to the general assessment of what Iran means by way of terrorism * * * support of Hizbollah, Hamas, and Jihad.'' While we and our allies now share a similar analysis of the facts, we differ when it comes to how best to deal with Iran. The United States believes that Iran will only change its behavior when the world makes it pay a sufficiently high political and economic price. We must deny Iran's leaders the resources to finance their dangerous policies. That is why the President decided last year to impose a comprehensive embargo on U.S. trade with Iran. And that is why we have been working with Congress on legislation to further tighten economic restrictions on Iran. In contrast, some European nations continue to engage Iran in what they call a critical dialogue, while maintaining normal trade. The Europeans themselves acknowledge that their policy has produced no significant change in Iranian behavior. We remain convinced that no amount of dialogue will alter Iran's policies, unless it is coupled with real economic pressure. Let me stress one point: We do not oppose the EU policy because we oppose the principle of speaking with Iran. The United States has long said that we are ready to conduct an open dialogue with authoritative representatives of the Iranian government, in which we could fully air our two major concerns: First, Iran's support for terrorism, especially against the peace process. And second, its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Iran, however, has never taken up this offer. Our determination to contain Iran and to defeat the enemies of peace is clear. But so is our commitment to press ahead with negotiations on a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. Anything less would hand the terrorists the very victory they seek. To close the circle of peace, agreements between Israel and Syria and between Israel and Lebanon are essential. Syria presents us with a unique challenge. On the one hand, we continue to have serious problems in our bilateral relationship with Syria. Syria remains on our narcotics list as well as our terrorism list. Both President Clinton and I have consistently pressed our concerns with President Assad and other senior Syrian officials. We will continue to do so, and to make clear that these concerns must be met before the United States can build a mutually beneficial relationship with Syria. Yet we recognize that Syria is different from Iran. Iran rejects the very notion of peace and has dedicated itself to Israel's destruction. By contrast, Syria has been negotiating directly with Israel to end their conflict. I have no illusions. Translating that willingness to negotiate into a peace agreement will be difficult. But the talks thus far have provided a solid foundation for progress when negotiations resume. As long as we remain convinced that peace is possible, we must continue to work with the parties to achieve a breakthrough that would have far-reaching strategic consequences--not just for the Middle East, but for America's vital interests. A comprehensive peace will dramatically reduce the risks of another Arab-Israeli war. It will remove the final constraints on Israel's having normal relations with the entire Arab and Muslim world. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, ending the Arab- Israeli conflict will allow us and our friends to harness our resources to meet the common set of strategic challenges that threaten us all--especially the rise of extremist movements that use terrorism and violence, and rogue states, like Iran and Iraq, that possess weapons of mass destruction. These are the real dangers that we and our friends will have to address in the coming years. In pursuit of our national interests, we are determined to do so. A critical part of our strategy must be a continued effort to seize the historic opportunity that now exists to achieve a secure and comprehensive peace.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on April 16, Members of Congress, members of the Diplomatic Corps and hundreds of survivors of the Holocaust and their friends gathered here in the Capitol Rotunda for the National Days of Remembrance commemoration. The United States Holocaust Memorial Council was established by Congress to preserve the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. I commend the Council and the members of the Days of Remembrance Committee, chaired by my good friend Benjamin Meed, for their vigilant and genuine adherence to their extraordinarily important task. One of the first acts of the Council was to establish the annual Days of Remembrance commemoration to mirror similar observances held in Israel and throughout our nation and elsewhere in the world. This year, the commemoration centered on the 50th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials. The observance was a reminder of the difficult process of first coping and then healing that all survivors and their families and loved ones had to endure. Our senior colleague, Sid Yates, who himself served with distinction in the Navy in World War II, delivered a very poignant speech at the ceremony. I was so moved by his powerful speech that I invite my colleagues to take a moment to read his remarks. The Days of Remembrance Candle Lighting Ceremony (By Sidney R. Yates) ``The first to perish were the children,'' said poet Yitzshak Katzenelson, himself a victim of the Nazis, and a witness to their destruction. French author, Francois Mauriac who lived in occupied France said: ``Nothing I have seen during these somber years left so deep a mark upon me as those hundreds, of Jewish children standing in Austerlitz station.'' 15.000 children were sent to Terezin concentration camp. Only 100 survived. Jiri Weil writes of these children: ``Only the drawings and the poems--that is all that is left of these children, for their ashes have long since sifted across the fields around Auschwitz.'' How could any person--kill innocent children--not 1 or 20 or 100--but 1.5 million children were exterminated by the Nazis. We cannot forget the insane butchery of our young. We mourn for them--for their mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters--and we mourn for ourselves, for having lost them. Today as we light the candles we will honor members of the staff who prosecuted the German leaders at The Nuremberg Trials for crimes unprecedented in human history. Unprecedented, yes, and also unspeakable. As these candles are lighted we remember the victims of Nazi viciousness. As we light these candles we will be remembering the children whose lives were snuffed out. There is no punishment adequate for the crimes against the children. There is only our memory to keep them alive-- forever. We will Remember the Children.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this Chamber has heard many statements on the horrors that the recent wars on the territory of the former Yugoslavia visited on the peoples of that region. While no side remained blameless in these conflicts, in fact, all sides committed unspeakable crimes, it was certainly the Serb aggressors who showed the world degrees of inhumane cruelty, of barbarism that some of us had hoped would never be used again as tools to settle questions of territory or dominance. I was one of the Members here who made many of the statements I just referred to as I followed these events closely and felt very strongly about them. Nonetheless, just the other day I was reminded again quite powerfully of the excesses of perverse cruelty in these wars. I was presented with a photo album of some of the churches of Eastern Croatia, the region that is still under Serb occupation. These pictures reminded me that this was not just a political and ethnic war, but it was also a war against culture and religion. The Serb invaders purposefully targeted the churches of the Croat and Hungarian ethnic communities in that region, shelling them with ferocity and great precision. About 67 churches lie partly or fully in ruin in or around the still occupied territories. Not all news coming from that region is bad, however. These photos of the destroyed churches were presented to me in my office by a remarkable individual, Mr. Antun Novalic, a businessman from the town of Osijek, Croatia, right across a river from the occupied territories. In this area where the wounds of ethnic hatred are still festering, Mr. Novalic has established a foundation with his own money, dedicated to rebuilding those churches regardless of the creed or ethnicity of the congregations. His plans also include the restoration of the old Jewish cemetery in the village of Vorosmart, an ancient Hungarian settlement in Croatia going back over a millennium. The cemetery suffered no war damage, but it suffered vandalism during the invasion and is generally in a neglected state. Mr. Novalic was not asking for money in this country, as he told me he wanted to establish a record of accomplishment using his own funds before he would ask for others to contribute. He was here to seek moral support and to inform Americans who care about the fate of that region of the objectives of the Novalic Foundation. Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Novalic for his noble idea and wish every success for his foundation. I wanted my colleagues to know that for every act of destruction, of seeding hatred, someone, somewhere is working selflessly on construction, on restoring ethnic harmony and tolerance. I hope the United States will remain allied to such people and give their efforts all reasonable support.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on April 16, Members of Congress, members of the diplomatic corps and hundreds of survivors of the Holocaust and their friends gathered here in the Capitol Rotunda for the Days of Remembrance ceremony. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council was established by Congress to preserve the memory of the horrors of the Holocaust. I commend the Council and the members of the Days of Remembrance Committee, chaired by my good friend Benjamin Meed, for their vigilant and genuine adherence to their extraordinarily important task. One of the first acts of the committee was to establish the Days of Remembrance ceremony to mirror similar ceremonies held in Israel and throughout our Nation and the World. This year, the Days of Remembrance ceremony centered on the 50th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials. The ceremony was a reminder of the difficult process of first coping and their healing that all survivors and process of first coping and then healing that all survivors and their families and loved ones had to endure. At this ceremony I was touched by the especially poignant words of Associate Justice Stephen Breyer. Throughout his life he has committed himself to the guidance of education and the principal of justice. These were the principles that he chose to speak of, so eloquently, during the ceremony. Therefore, it was befitting that a leader from the highest court of our land address the ceremony commemorating the triumph of justice over barbarity. Justice Breyer stands as a symbol of our country's fervent commitment to the rule of law. His remarks commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials will endure as a tribute to those who championed the forces of justice, compassion and equality in an environment where those same qualities were callously disregarded. I ask by colleagues to join me congratulating Justice Breyer on his excellent speech; may its wonderful and inspirational message find its way into the hearts and minds of individuals around the world. Crimes Against Humanity, Nuremberg, 1946 (By Stephen Breyer, Associate Supreme Court Justice) The law of the United States sets aside today, Yom Hashoah, as a Day of Remembrance--of the Holocaust. On Yom Hashoah 1996, we recall that fifty years ago another member of the Court on which I sit, Justice Robert Jackson, joined representatives of other nations, as a prosecutor, at Nuremberg. That city, Jackson said, though chosen for the trial because of its comparatively will-functioned physical facilities, was then ``in terrible shape, there being no telephone communications, the streets full of rubble, with some twenty thousand dead bodies reported to be still in it and the smell of death hovering over it, no public transportation of any kind, no shops, no commerce, no lights, the water system in bad shape.'' The courthouse had been ``damaged.'' Its courtroom was ``not large.'' Over one door was ``an hour glass.'' Over another was ``a large plaque of the Ten Commandments''--a sole survivor. In the dock 21 leaders of Hitler's Thousand Year Reich faced prosecution. Justice Jackson described the Nuremberg Trial as ``the most important trial that could be imagined.'' He described his own work there as the most important ``experience of my life,'' ``infinitely more important than my work on the Supreme Court, or . . . anything that I did as Attorney General.'' This afternoon, speaking to you as an American Jew, a judge, a Member of the Supreme Court, I should like briefly to explain why I think that he was right. First, as a lawyer, Robert Jackson understood the importance of collecting evidence. Collecting evidence? one might respond. What need to collect evidence in a city where, only twenty years before, the law itself, in the form of Nuremberg Decrees, had segregated Jews into Ghettos, placed them in forced labor, expelled them from their professions, expropriated their property, and forbid them all cultural life, press, theater, and schools. What need to collect evidence with the death camps that followed themselves opened to a world, which finally might see. ``Evidence,'' one might then have exclaimed. ``Just open your eyes and look around you.'' But the Torah tells us, There grew up a generation that ``knew not Joseph.'' That is the danger. And Jackson was determined to compile a record that would not leave that, or any other future generation with the slightest doubt. ``We must establish incredible events by credible evidence,'' he said. And, he realized that, for this purpose, the prosecution's 33 live witnesses were of secondary importance. Rather, the prosecutors built what Jackson called ``a drab case,'' which did not ``appeal to the press'' or the public, but it was an irrefutable case. It was built of documents of the defendants ``own making,'' the ``authenticity of which'' could not be, and was not ``challenged.'' The prosecutors brought to Nuremberg 100,000 captured German documents; they examined millions of feet of captured moving picture film; they produced 25,000 captured still photographs, ``together with Hitler's personal photographer who took most of them.'' The prosecutors decided not to ask any defendant to testify against another defendant, lest anyone believe that one defendant's hope for leniency led him to exaggerate another's crimes. But they permitted each defendant to call witnesses, to testify in his own behalf, to make an additional statement not under oath, and to present documentary evidence. The very point was to say to these defendants: What have you to say when faced with our case--a case that you, not we, have made, resting on your own words and confessed deeds? What is your response? The answer, after more than 10 months and 17,000 transcript pages, was, in respect to nineteen of the defendants, that there was no answer. There was no response. There was nothing to say. As a result, the evidence is there, in Jackson's words, ``with such authenticity and in such detail that there can be no responsible denial of these crimes in the future and no tradition of martyrdom of the Nazi leaders can arise among informed people.'' Future generations need only open their eyes and read. Second, as a judge, Robert Jackson understood the value of precedent--what Cardozo called ``the power of the beaten path.'' He hoped to create a precedent that, he said, would make ``explicit and unambiguous'' what previously had been ``implicit'' in the law, ``that to persecute, oppress, or do violence to individuals or minorities on political, racial, or religious grounds . . . is an international crime . . . for the commission [of which] . . . individuals are responsible'' and can be punished. He hoped to forge from the victorious nations' several different legal systems a single workable system that, in this instance, would serve as the voice of human decency. He hoped to create a ``model of forensic fairness'' that even a defeated nation would perceive as fair. Did he succeed? At the least, three-quarters of the German nation at the time said they found the trial ``fair'' and ``just.'' More importantly, there is cause for optimism about the larger objectives. Consider how concern for the protection of basic human liberties grew dramatically in the United States, in Europe, and then further abroad, in the half century after World War II. Consider the development of what is now a near consensus that legal institutions--written constitutions, bills of rights, fair procedures, an independent judiciary--should play a role, sometimes an important role, in the protection of human liberty. Consider that, today, a half century after Nuremberg (and history does not count fifty years as long), nations feel that they cannot simply ignore the most barbarous acts of other nations; nor, for that matter, as recent events show, can those who commit those acts ignore the ever more real possibility that they will be held accountable and brought to justice under law. We are drawn to follow a path once beaten. Third, as a human being, Jackson believed that the Nuremberg trials represented a human effort to fulfill a basic human aspiration--``humanity's aspiration to do justice.'' He enunciated this effort in his opening statement to the Tribunal. He began: ``The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four nations flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power ever has paid to Reason.'' To understand the significance of this statement, it is important to understand what it is not. Nuremberg does not purport to be humanity's answer to the cataclysmic events the opening statement goes on to describe. A visit to the Holocaust Museum (or, for some, to the corridors of memory) makes clear that not even Jackson's fine sentences, eloquent though they are, can compensate for the events that provoked them. But, that is only because, against the background of what did occur, almost any human statement would ring hollow. A museum visit leads many, including myself, to react, not with words, but with silence. We think: There are no words. There is no compensating deed. There can be no vengeance. Nor is any happy ending possible. We emerge deeply depressed about the potential for evil that human beings possess. It is at this point, perhaps, that Nuremberg can help, for it reminds us that the Holocaust story is not the whole story; it reminds us of those human aspirations that remain a cause for optimism. It reminds us that after barbarism came a call for reasoned justice. To end the Holocaust story with a fair trial, an emblem of that justice, is to remind the listener of what Aeschylus wrote twenty-five hundred years ago, in his ``Eumenides''-- where Justice overcoming the avenging furies, humanity's barbaric selves, promises Athens that her seat, the seat of Justice, ``shall be a wall, a bulwark of salvation, wide as your land, as your imperial state; none mightier in the habitable world.'' It is to repear the Book of Deuteronomy's injunction to the Jewish People: ``Justice, justice shall you pursue.'' And if I emphasize the role of Nuremberg in a story of the Holocaust, that is not simply because Justice Jackson himself hoped that the trial ``would commend itself to posterity.'' Rather, it is because our role--the role of almost all of us--today in relation to the Holocaust is not simply to learn from it, but also to tell and to retell it, ourselves, to our children and to future generations. Those who were lost said, ``Remember us.'' To do that, to remember and to repeat the story is to preserve the past, it is to learn from the past, it is to instruct and to warn the future. It is to help that future, by leading them to understand the very worst of which human nature is capable. But, it is also to tell that small part of the story that will also remind them of one human virtue--humanity's ``aspiration to do justice.'' It is to help us say, with the Psalmist, ``Righteousness and Justice are the foundations of Your Throne.''

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for the Congress to raise the minimum wage--without gimmicks, without linking it with unacceptable provisions, without political posturing, and without delay. It is time to take this action without adding amendments and gimmicks and riders and poison pills that will limit and lessen the impact of an increase in the minimum wage. Adjusted for inflation, the current minimum wage is worth 50 cents less today than it was in 1991 when it was last increased. To restore the same purchasing power that the minimum wage had in the late 1970's would require us to increase its level to $6.10 today. Even if we adopt the legislation I am supporting and increase the minimum wage to $5.15, we are not keeping up with the increased cost of living. Although the proposed increase is very modest, it will benefit our national economy. Economists estimate that 12 million people will be helped by a 90-cent increase. In addition, some 4 million workers who earn less than $6.00 per hour will see their incomes increase as a result of a boost in the Federal minimum wage. In my home State of California our minimum wage is higher than the Federal level, but if we increase the Federal minimum wage, it will have a positive effect on the lowest wages in our area as well. The people who will benefit from an increase are not just teenagers at local fast food restaurants trying to earn extra cash for a rock concert or a pair of baggy Levis. Of those earning the minimum wage, 63 percent are workers over the age of 20 and 46 percent are over the age of 25; 59 percent of workers earning the minimum wage are women and more than half of these women are over 25 years of age; 43 percent of minimum wage earners are working full time. Mr. Speaker, as a former professor of economics, I have been particularly interested in recent economic research on the effects of the minimum wage on workers and their families and the economy. A number of studies demonstrate that the possible negative impact of moderate increases in the minimum wage phased in over a period of more than a year is minimal. Studies show that with the minimum wage relatively low compared with the average wage--a consequence of the fact that the minimum wage has not kept pace with the increase in the cost of living--the effect of this increase on both employment and incomes will be positive. In fact, several prominent scholars have argued quite convincingly that the income gains from an increase in the minimum wage would outweigh any job losses that might result from the increase. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, this is a question of fundamental fairness. At a time when we are seeing a growing gap between wealthy Americans and working Americans, it is fundamentally unfair to maintain the minimum wage at levels which shrink with every increase in the cost of living. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have seen vast increases in the compensation of chief executive officers of America's corporations--last year corporate executives saw their salaries jump by 31 percent while workers earning the minimum wage stayed at exactly the same level. Mr. Speaker, the time has come to increase the minimum wage. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this action in the interest of fundamental fairness and in the interest of millions of American workers.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep sadness at the passing of Dr. Stanley Martin Hanfling, a long-time close friend and a prominent physician from Hillsborough, CA, in my congressional district. Dr. Hanfling dedicated his life to healing, to the advancement of medicine and to improving the health knowledge of our Nation as a whole. I wish to express my most heartfelt gratitude for his many years of friendship and service to the community. My sincerest condolences to his wonderful wife, Cecilia, his sister, Ruth Samuels, his cousin, Irma Leon, his two nephews, a niece, and a multitude of friends and patients. The San Francisco Peninsula will sorely miss the intelligence and expertise of this excellent physician. Until shortly before his death, Dr. Hanfling practiced internal medicine at his San Mateo office. He was on the staff at Peninsula, Mills, Sequoia, and San Mateo County hospitals. He dedicated many hours of his valuable time at several free clinics and taught health education classes at the College of San Mateo. These varied and extremely important posts which Dr. Hanfling held throughout his career made him an integral part of health care for people of all backgrounds and needs on the San Francisco Peninsula. Shortly after completing his medical training, Dr. Hanfling served his country with distinction as a captain in the U.S. Army at Valley Forge Army Hospital in Phoenixville, PA, during 1956 to 1958. While pursuing his demanding career, he remained active in the Army Reserve Medical Corps from 1958 to 1966. Dr. Hanfling was not only committed to serving all who sought his expertise through a hospital, doctor's office or free clinic, he was also committed to improving the health of his community through education. Dr. Hanfling hosted and produced 26 half-hour educational programs, part of a series entitled ``Medical Update'' which was broadcast on KCSM-TV in San Mateo. These programs addressed a wide range of subjects, including coronary artery disease, birth control, exercise and health, health policy, cancer, and venereal disease. These far-reaching programs earned Dr. Hanfling an award from the American Medical Association for educational TV and radio programs. Music was Dr. Hanfling's passion outside of medicine. Here, too, he sought to share his enjoyment of music with the community and promote the talents of local musicians. For two decades he opened his home to musicians and guests for an extensive series of chamber music and recitals that were regularly attended by friends, acquaintances and patients. Dr. Hanfling also sponsored the careers of several promising local musicians, including the up-and-coming Aurora String Quartet. Mr. Speaker, as we say goodby to Dr. Hanfling, we are reminded of the difference one dedicated individual can make through his professional and extracurricular pursuits. I consider myself extremely fortunate to be among the many individuals who benefited from his wisdom and kindness. Stanley, we all send you our love and appreciation.