Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on December 10th this nation and the global community will observe World Human Rights Day 2001. World Human Rights Day provides an opportunity to focus the attention of the international community on the most fundamental issue to all of mankind. It is a day of celebration for those, like me, who were liberated and a day of remembrance for those who still live under oppression. Human rights and democracy are like two sides of the same coin--it is impossible to have one without the other. The Republic of China on Taiwan is an example of a democratic nation which fully observes human rights for all of its people. On December 1, Taiwan held a major round of free and fair elections in which every office was contested and competition was fierce. With the strengthening of Taiwanese democracy comes the strengthening of Human Rights for the people of Taiwan. On the eve of last years World Human Rights Day, President Chen Shui- bian of Taiwan attended a ceremony at the human rights memorial on Green Island, Taiwan. President Chen pledged then to observe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights as well as the guidelines from the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna. President Chen's remarks indicate a serious movement to bring Taiwan back into the international community of human rights observers by recognizing the sanctity and universality of human rights. Earlier this year, Taiwan's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Hung-mao Tien elaborated on Taiwan's ``Human Rights Diplomacy'' announcing to the International Conference on National Human Rights Commission held in Taipei that it is Taiwan's intention to fully participate in international human rights activities such as the Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions. Moreover, Taiwan wisely recognizes poverty and lack of access to basic social services as violations of fundamental human rights. Minister Tien said in his speech in Taipei that Taiwan is generously using its economic strength to put together an effective set of international cooperation programs designed to help developing nations overcome problems associated with poverty and underdevelopment. On World Human Rights Day 2001, I applaud Taiwan's achievements and continuing efforts to observe human rights. I hope that other countries will follow Taiwan's excellent example by committing their resources to democratization and improvement of human rights.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last weekend was a particularly horrible chapter in the on-going strife in the Middle East. In a wave of violence, Palestinian terrorist suicide bombers killed 25 innocent Israeli children, women, and men as they were going about their daily activities--walking in a pedestrian mall and riding a public bus. The terrorist organization, Hamas, has taken ``credit'' for these deplorable acts. Their targeting civilians of all ages and walks of life is part of their cowardly and vicious attempt to destroy the State of Israel. Such acts cannot be tolerated. Mr. Speaker, George F. Will has written a particularly insightful piece in the December 4th issue of the Washington Post. He spells out the misguided and dangerous actions of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority which have prevented peace from being attained in that very volatile region of the world, and he stresses the need for Israel aggressively to protect herself. Where hope for a peaceful Middle East settlement once existed after the Madrid Conference in 1991 and the Oslo Agreement in 1993, we now find an environment of hate for Israel and the United States which has been fertilized and nourished by such debacles as the United Nations World Conference Against Racism, which was held in Durban, South Africa last summer. Mr. Speaker, I was present at Durban for this conference, and I fully concur with George Will's assessment that this was truly not a conference against racism, but rather a racist conference! I have rarely seen such anti-Semitic and anti-Israel venom spewed as I did at that conference. Because of the level of hatred and the lack of fairness, the United States Government walked out of the conference. I was greatly disappointed that we had no choice but to walk out because this was an opportunity to deal meaningfully with the many problems of racism, discrimination, and xenophobia which the world faces. Instead of addressing these problems, the conference was hijacked by Arab extremists determined to single out and politically punish Israel, our only democratic ally in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read George Will's excellent and thought-provoking article, and I ask that the text be placed in the Record. [From the Washington Post, Dec. 4, 2001] A Plan for Arafat (By George F. Will) Coming from the territory for which Yasser Arafat is responsible, terrorists last weekend killed 26 Israelis, a portion of Israel's population that is equal to 1,240 Americans. America is projecting power halfway around the world to collapse the Taliban regime because it harbors terrorists. It would be disgusting for America to call for Israeli ``restraint'' and to disapprove if Israel cleanses its back yard of Arafat's Palestinian Authority regime that welcomes terrorists except when, to distract America, it yet again promises to pass a few through the revolving doors of PA jails. It is time for a novel approach to the war between Israel and Arafat's Palestinian Authority. The approach should begin with wisdom from a Donald Westlake crime novel mordantly titled ``What's The Worst That Could Happen?'' Westlake's amiable crooks want to rob a Las Vegas Casino, but don't know how. One of them says he has a lot of ideas, but Westlake writes: ``A whole lot of ideas isn't a plan. . . . Ideas without a plan is usually just enough boulders to get you into the deep part of the stream, and no way to get back.'' The latest U.S. idea is to send retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni to pick up the shards of the last idea, which was to send CIA Director George Tenet to implement former Senator George Mitchell's idea for a cease-fire followed by a cooling-off period followed by ``confidence-building'' measures. The idea of the Mitchell plan is that neither side is to blame--neither Israel, which wants to exist, nor the Palestinians who do not want it to; neither the Palestinians who want to plant nail bombs on buses, nor Israel, which would prefer the Palestinians not do that. Rather, a mutual lack of ``confidence'' is to blame. There is this much truth in that idea: the Palestinian Authority lacks confidence in Israel's willingness to commit suicide, and Israel lacks confidence that the PA will stop insisting on suicide as part of a ``peace'' agreement. The idea behind dispatching Mitchell was to pick up where Dennis Ross left off. (Did you know that Donald Rumsfeld was special emissary to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 1983- 84? There were many emissaries before him, and have been many since.) Ross's task, which he undertook with the energy and wisdom of a beaver, was to oversee the Oslo ``peace process,'' which turned on Arafat's renunciation of violence. That process has required lots of overseeing, considering that terrorists have killed more Israelis in the eight years since Oslo began in 1993 than in the 45 years of Israel's existence before that. The idea behind Oslo was for Israel to ``take a risk for peace''--as though getting on a bus, visiting a pizzeria or disco, and walking down a street are not risky enough for Israelis. Israel would take a risk by yielding something tangible, control of land, for something intangible, Arafat's promises of peace. Israel did that. The current war refutes the Oslo idea. The idea behind Oslo was to capitalize on the ``spirit of Madrid,'' an Israeli-Palestinian conference convened in 1991, in the aftermath of the Gulf War. The idea behind Madrid was. . . . Does anyone remember? You must remember this. On Aug. 31, Arafat, world's senior terrorist, did a star turn--at one point strolling with America's senior friend of terrorists, Jesse Jackson--in Durban, South Africa, at a U.N. orgy of hate directed against Israel and the United States and bearing an Orwellian title: World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. It was the kind of sewer of ideas that prepares the climate for the sort of things that happened in America 11 days after the conference opened, and what happened last weekend in Israel. Now Israel should be as bold in its self-defense as America is being in its. In 1982, Israel drove Arafat and his thugs from Lebanon to Tunisia. He and his thugocracy have earned another expulsion from the eastern end of the Mediterranean. If he cannot control his territory, it is in anarchy and Israel must subdue it. If he can control it but won't, he has earned expulsion under the principle America cites in expelling the Taliban from power. If expulsion strikes the U.S. State Department as, well, immoderate, here is a moderate version of the idea. When next the peripatetic Arafat flies off to visit world capitals, Israel should not let him come back: He cannot land in PA territory if Israel does not let him. That is more than an idea. It is a plan.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield as much time as he might consume to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), my dear friend and distinguished colleague, the ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. I rise in strong support of S. Con. Res. 58. I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for bringing this legislation to the floor, but I particularly want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), my dear friend, our distinguished colleague, for having provided extraordinary leadership on this and on so many other issues that our Committee on International Relations deals with. I also want to recognize the contribution of my good friend, Senator Akaka of Hawaii, for his co-chairmanship of this important conference. The resolution before us today expresses the support of our Members for the 10th annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum to be held next January in Honolulu. It also commends the East-West Center, an outstanding academic institution, for hosting the meeting and for supporting the endeavors of the forum. Madam Speaker, we are fortunate as a Nation to have our bright and talented foreign service personnel working overtime to promote our interests throughout the Asia Pacific region. Our diplomats have many opportunities to meet with their colleagues and to develop positive solutions to the challenges we face in the Pacific area. Until the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum was founded a decade ago, there were few opportunities for the region's parliamentarians to meet as a group to discuss key foreign policy and economic matters. The forum has tackled such critical issues as terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, cross boundary environmental pollution, human rights and the need to combat corruption in the region. The upcoming meeting will tackle these important issues, and hopefully, they will contribute to a partial resolution of many of these matters. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, again I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his extraordinary leadership. I want to thank all my colleagues and staff for working on this landmark legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), our distinguished colleague.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend and my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my dear friend and distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), who served our Nation with great distinction as a United States ambassador.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the incoming whip of the Democratic Party, my friend and neighbor in San Francisco, who has been a national leader in the fight against HIV/AIDS for years.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). No Member has worked harder and more diligently on this issue than my friend and colleague from California.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Madam Speaker, I first would like to commend my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his leadership, his vision and his commitment to help combat the global HIV-AIDS crisis. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has shown courage and integrity in tackling this issue, when he could have relied upon others to legislate on this front. Many do not see the global HIV- AIDS crisis as a United States priority and question the need to spend significant U.S. funds toward preventing and treating this disease, but the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) recognizes not only the severity of the epidemic, but our moral, humanitarian and national security interests in stemming the tide of the HIV-AIDS pandemic. I would also like to commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), for her unwavering leadership in the global fight against HIV-AIDS. She has played a critical role in setting this Congress on the right course on this human disaster and in fashioning this legislation. Madam Speaker, the bill reflects an extraordinary process of consultation that involves not only members of our committee, but advocacy groups, non-governmental organizations, the administration and the staff of the United Nations. The result is a landmark, bipartisan agreement that outlines both a policy framework and funding levels for U.S. bilateral and multilateral assistance to fight the global AIDS pandemic. I want to join the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) in praising members of the Republican and Democratic staffs who played such a key role in bringing us to this point. Madam Speaker, the bill before us represents a broad consensus, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. I truly believe that our legislation lays the foundation for a long-term commitment by the United States to eradicate this devastating disease. Our bill authorizes $535 million in bilateral U.S. assistance to education, prevention, treatment and care of HIV-AIDS and those highly infectious diseases associated with it. In addition, our bill commits $750 million towards a global health fund to coordinate both funding and comprehensive programs in the fight against this disease, to which governments the private sector, foundations and individual philanthropists will contribute. Madam Speaker, in this post-September 11 world, it is all too easy to lose sight of the HIV-AIDS crisis as we focus on the most pressing problem of global terrorism and the devastating conditions in Afghanistan, but it is precisely in this post-September 11 era that we must strive to maintain our commitment to HIV-AIDS and other crises of global magnitude. AIDS has devastated entire societies, and it is leaving in its wake a generation lost in despair. It is these children, raised without hope, who often provide fertile grounds for the terrorists and criminal networks to sow their evil seeds. As our Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said at the UN special session on AIDS, ``From this moment on, our response to AIDS must be no less comprehensive, no less relentless, and no less swift than the pandemic itself.'' If we have learned anything through our terrible national tragedy, it is that the world's problems are our problems, and if we do not deal with these problems overseas, we will be dealing with them on our own doorstep. The resurgence of HIV-AIDS and tuberculosis in some parts of the United States is just one ominous indication of how the problems of the developing world can soon become our own problems if we do not act decisively. The new bilateral program authorized by our legislation will guarantee that the American people are directly engaged in providing education, prevention, treatment and care to those suffering in poor countries. It will improve the quality of the U.S. aid programs in the HIV-AIDS field and provide those who are suffering with AIDS opportunities to live better and more productive lives. Our proposed 1-year multilateral expenditure of $750 million is a major investment on our part toward a global effort to secure a better future for millions suffering from this deadly disease. It is a signal to the world, and particularly those suffering from this disease, that the United States is a partner in the international battle against HIV- AIDS. Lastly, Madam Speaker, I want to tell schoolteachers, health workers, women and men, grandparents and orphans in poor countries suffering from the HIV-AIDS pandemic that we are fighting for and with them. Men, women and children in Africa, South Asia, Europe, the Western Hemisphere, are all affected, and we must all work together to find a solution. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2069. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and I first want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), for his eloquent and powerful statement and for his support. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for moving this legislation through the committee and to the floor today. I also want to especially thank the Speaker, the majority leader, and the majority whip for placing it on today's suspension calendar. But most of all, Madam Speaker, I want to thank Ms. Tanya Shamson, a distinguished member of the committee staff, bilingual and bicultural, for doing extraordinarily effective work in crafting this legislation. Madam Speaker, the House could not have chosen a more fitting time to consider this bill. As you know, President Bush recently concluded a most productive summit with President Putin in Texas and Secretary of State Powell was in Moscow just a couple of days ago on a most successful visit. When I first introduced the Russia Democracy Act of 2001, the world was a very different place. Our administration was embarking on a comprehensive inter-agency Russia policy review with many complications and many problems. The relations between our two countries were neither friendly nor cordial. Today, in the post-September 11 world, the picture is drastically different. President Putin made a courageous decision on September 11 to join the civilized world and to stand with us against global terrorism. There are elements within Russia, Madam Speaker, who are not happy with this decision. That is one of the many reasons why we must craft a creative and responsible policy toward Russia that will firmly anchor that important country in the West. I was very pleased to hear President Bush mention the importance of a free press during his Shanghai press conference with President Putin and during President Putin's visit to the United States. I passionately believe that the existence of a vibrant, self-sustaining, nonstate- owned and nonstate-controlled media in Russia is the key to Russia's successful integration with the democratic societies of the West. My bill will support such media activities, including access to the Internet and the use of modern technologies to improve media outreach throughout Russia. The Russian nongovernmental sector also needs our support. Although President Putin chastised Russian NGOs for accepting financial support from abroad, Russia simply does not yet have a culture of either corporate philanthropy or private donations to make these nongovernmental organizations viable. The plethora of nongovernmental organizations that have sprung up in Russia since 1991 provides us with an enormous opportunity to build this democratic component into the new Russian society. U.S.-Russian relationships have entered a new era. Our cooperation in the fight against global terrorism is unprecedented since our alliance during the Second World War more than a half a century ago. Recently, I had the privilege of meeting with President Putin, with Foreign Minister Ivanov, and other Russian officials; and we discussed our relationships in detail. There are still many areas where we disagree, such as Russian arms sales to Iran; but today, there are many areas where we do agree, and the U.S.-Russia relationship today is fundamentally a healthy one. The Russian leadership has clearly shown where it sees Russia's future to be; and it is our responsibility to stay engaged, to be responsive, and to support Russian democracy and the private sector. At President Bush's request, I shall shortly be introducing legislation putting an end to the Jackson-Vanik legislation, legislation which was one of the most important pieces of human rights legislation in our Nation's history. But things have changed and Russia now permits free immigration. The repeal of Jackson-Vanik will be yet another demonstration of our growing cooperative, constructive, and healthy relationship with Russia. The Government of Russia, Madam Speaker, has introduced, and the Russian Duma has passed, landmark legislation during this past session. For the first time since 1917, Russian citizens can now own their own land. This is not only an important new economic fact, it is a psychological breakthrough of immense proportions. It is obvious that the government and the Duma are now serious about tackling other sectors that have long been resistant to reform. Mr. Putin understands that the creation of a welcoming investment climate is one of the key pillars to sustained economic growth in Russia. Madam Speaker, I strongly believe that supporting democracy, the consolidation of the market economy, and developing a vibrant private sector is in our national interest. By funding the development of civil society in Russia and a free and independent media, H.R. 2121 will play a critical role in strengthening U.S.-Russian relations and strengthening democracy in Russia. Let us not squander this unprecedented moment to bring Russia closer to the West. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2121. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing H.R. 3427, the Afghanistan Freedom and Reconstruction Act of 2001. I want to thank my good friend, the Gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman, ranking Democratic Member of the Middle East and South Asia subcommittee. Without his hard work and that of his staff, we would have never reached this point. As we speak, the Taliban leadership is on the run. The capital city of Kabul has been liberated from Taliban control, as have key cities across Afghanistan. The final pockets of resistance are surrounded and facing imminent defeat. And as freedom returns to Afghanistan, women are throwing off their veils and men are lining up at barber shops to shave their beards after years of repressive rule. Now is the time for swift action by this Congress, for the United States to demonstrate to the people of Afghanistan and throughout the Muslim world that the military campaign against Al-Qaida and the Taliban is neither a war against Muslims nor a war against the Afghan people. Yes, the United States is committed to wipe-out the terrorist network in Afghanistan. But we must be equally committed to helping the Afghan people reclaim their country and rebuild their lives. We may be close to winning the war but we are far from winning the peace. The United States did not live up to its commitment after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was repulsed. We left the people of Afghanistan and our friends in Pakistan to fend for themselves. Afghanistan disintegrated as a result, as warlords pillaged the country, followed by the Taliban's repressive rule and ultimately the rise of terrorist elements. Mr. Chairman, we must not permit the past to be repeated in Afghanistan. Yesterday, the representatives from all major factions in Afghanistan signed a landmark agreement to create a broad-based, multiethnic, gender-sensitive, fully-representative government in Afghanistan. After over 20 years of civil war, foreign occupation, and oppression, the people of Afghanistan see rays of hope breaking through their clouds of fear. Over the last few months, the International Relations Committee has held a series of hearings regarding the humanitarian needs in Afghanistan, the possibilities for reconstruction, and Afghani hopes for the future. Based on these hearings, it is clear to me that we must help the Afghan people secure a future for their children that is free from war and built on the same hopes and aspirations held by all- freedom loving people around the world. Achieving this vision for Afghanistan is not only a moral and humanitarian impulse--it is a national security imperative. If we are to prevent future terrorist attacks targeting the United States, we must provide a positive alternative to the poverty, repression, and religious fanaticism that breeds terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and his minions. H.R. 3427, the Afghan Freedom and Reconstruction Act of 2001 does just that. The bill: Expresses a sense of Congress on the U.S. policy towards Afghanistan, including promoting its neutrality, supporting a broad-based, multi- ethnic, gender-sensitive, fully representative government, and maintaining a significant commitment to the relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction of Afghanistan. Authorizes $77.5 million for broadcasting to Afghanistan; Authorizes $325 million for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan in fiscal year 2003; Authorizes $150 million for fiscal year 2002 and 2003 for a multinational security force in Afghanistan and authorizes funding for civil advisers for that country for the interim or transitional authority; Authorizes $875 million for rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance for fiscal years 2002-2005, with--conditions for each year to ensure that benchmarks laid out in the December 5, 2001 Bonn Agreement between the various Afghan factions are being met; assistance for agriculture, health care, education, vocational training, disarmament and demobilization, and anti-corruption and good governance programs; a special emphasis on assistance to women and girls; a report on assistance actually provided; and authority to provide some of this assistance through a multilateral fund. Authorizes $60 million for Democracy and human rights initiatives for fiscal years 2002 through 2004; Authorizes $62.5 for a contribution to the UN Drug Control Program for fiscal years 2002 through 2004 to reduce or eliminate the trafficking of illicit drugs in Afghanistan. Authorizes $65 million for a new secure diplomatic facility in Afghanistan. Requires the President to consult with Congress on any ongoing support for remnants of the Taliban, including sanctions against any country that provides such support. We are committed to supporting the people of Afghanistan in their quest to established a broad-based government that respects human rights--especially the rights of women and children--and practices religious tolerance. Mr. Chairman, I, along with Gary Ackerman, the ranking member on the Middle East and South Asia subcommittee, and the Gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, the Chairman of the International Operations and Human Rights subcommittee, am introducing this legislation to put the U.S. Congress squarely behind the people of Afghanistan and its nascent hopes for a brighter future.

Mr. LANTOS

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

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend and distinguished colleague from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. LANTOS. In view of the objection heard, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all persons who control time be given equally an additional 10 minutes. I know some of my colleagues do not need it, but in the spirit of collegiality, we do not want to stifle discussion.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the distinguished ranking member of the Middle East subcommittee of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentlewoman from Nevada, I want to make some observations on the speaker prior to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). I do not take back one single word of my statement. Units of Arafat Palestinian Authority have participated repeatedly in the most heinous terrorist acts and claimed credit for it. Arafat paid tribute to mass murderers and assassins on a repeated basis. He is part and parcel of the terrorist cabal. Let me also say, with respect to sanctimonious statements about peace, there was an opportunity for peace when, under President Clinton's leadership and at his urging, former Prime Minister Barak made sweeping and phenomenal concessions to the Palestinian Authority, and instead of accepting those or coming up with a counteroffer, he started a 14-month mass murder, sweeping the region, with hundreds of Israelis and Palestinians being killed, the Palestinian economy in shambles, tourism in the whole region from Egypt to Lebanon dead. All of it because of terrorism and violence. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), my distinguished colleague and good friend.