Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia on the Democratic side, Mr. Ackerman of New York. (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding. Mr. Speaker, our country is at war. Men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces, Republicans and Democrats, are making the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq to defend our freedom with 2,500 men and women having lost their lives in Iraq alone. They deserve our respect, our gratitude and our admiration, but we do not honor them with this debate today. Instead of discussing ideas and long overdue course corrections, we are being confronted with slogans. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like this country to believe that their party will stay the course in Iraq, while we want to cut and run. That kind of gross distortion may resonate on right-wing talk radio, but nothing could be further from the truth. We need to make sure the job is done right in Iraq and leave as soon as possible. Our men and women in uniform are striving, sometimes without the necessary troop strength and without adequate equipment to make the effort in Iraq a success. Here the House majority is undermining the democratic process and the very principles that these brave servicemen and women have gone abroad to defend. The actions of the Republican leadership in the run-up to today would make the Kremlin blush. Having made a decision to conduct a debate, the majority should have enabled full participation, allowing amendments to the proposed resolution on the House floor, and Democrats should have been afforded the opportunity to offer a substitute resolution. Instead, the resolution before us is a shameless, one-party manifesto. If the debate today were about substance rather than this one-party manifesto, we would focus on what staying the course means. The misguided and mistake-ridden effort in Iraq up to now is absolutely not the course to follow. I am deeply disturbed by critical issues concerning our efforts in Iraq that this resolution does not address: human rights violations; appalling shortcomings in planning for the post-conflict period; pathetically weak congressional oversight. Just consider the waste, fraud and abuse of reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Mr. Stuart Bowen, testified before our committee last week. I would like to pay tribute to the exceptional work that Mr. Bowen has done in this area. After serving as a senior member of George Bush's gubernatorial campaign team, as general counsel to then-Governor Bush, deputy counsel to the Bush transition team in 2000, and then associate counsel in the Bush White House, he left for the private sector, only to be brought back into service by the White House to oversee an investigation into mismanagement of funds in Iraq. The facts from the President's handpicked special Inspector General, Mr. Bowen, are shocking. Billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been wasted in Iraq. The executive branch should not have allowed such slipshod management. This Congress should have done its utmost to expose it but it has not, and the American people should not and will not tolerate it. During the first year of the war, $9 billion, that is $9 billion with a B, moved through Iraqi ministries with little or no accounting for results. More than 75 percent of oil and gas reconstruction projects, begun with our assistance, remain incomplete. Over half of the electricity reconstruction projects are unfinished. Some 40 percent of water and sanitation reconstruction is incomplete. Mr. Speaker, the international coalition's ability to exit Iraq responsibly, leaving the Iraqi people in charge of a stable country, is directly related to the success of our reconstruction efforts. These efforts have been severely undermined by waste, fraud and abuse. Our troops have been needlessly exposed to far greater risk because of these failures. We cannot stay the course when it is riddled with mismanagement. If this debate were about substance, rather than slogans, we would also be talking about the unconscionable punishment that many members of the National Guard and Reserve suffer because of their patriotism. Legislation that I have been advocating for over 3 years to address the gap between these volunteers' salary in their civilian jobs and the often far lower active duty pay in the Guard and the Reserves has met with repeated roadblocks thrown up by the Department of Defense and the Republican leadership of this House, for no legitimate reason. This pay gap not only affects the soldier but also thousands of families who now have to make ends meet on a significantly reduced income. In addition to their concerns for the safety of a loved one far away, tens of thousands of American families have to worry about meeting mortgage payments or even losing their homes because this House has not responded to their needs. If we truly cared about our fighting forces in Iraq, we would not merely wile away the hours in a debating society over a symbolic resolution lauding them in the abstract. We would take concrete action to ensure that they and their families are treated fairly. Rather than taking up legislation that would fix this problem, we are debating a divisive political resolution. Mr. Speaker, let nobody, not in this Chamber and not in this country, let nobody be fooled by the picture that the Republican leadership tries to paint with a debate over this resolution. There is no need to make a choice between ``cut and run'' and ``stay the course.'' What is called for is a long overdue course correction in the way the executive branch manages our country's efforts in Iraq and in the way Congress fulfills its critical constitutional role of oversight. Since I deeply favor a course correction, I will vote against this resolution, and I urge all of my colleagues to do so as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

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

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I urge all my colleagues to reject this rule. Mr. Speaker, as we embark on this debate, I believe it is important to recall the debate we had during the first Persian Gulf crisis. In 1991, we were on the brink of war with Iraq over Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Emotions were high, and the parties were divided. We Democrats were in the majority then, and we allowed over 30 hours of debate on three different measures representing profoundly differing points of view. I wish to repeat this, Mr. Speaker: we allowed over 30 hours of debate on three different measures representing profoundly differing points of view. And the critical vote, Mr. Speaker, was on a proposal of the Republican minority sponsored by the Republican minority leader, Bob Michel. It was supported by some of us on the majority Democratic side, myself included, and it prevailed. And in 1999, Mr. Speaker, as the people of Kosovo bled from the wounds of Serbian bullets, this House had a highly emotional debate over three different resolutions relating to proposed U.S. action to end the humanitarian disaster. Again, the minority was afforded an alternative which barely lost on a tie vote. Today we are purportedly debating how to end the war, rather than whether to begin one, and an equally vital debate given the lives at stake. But the Republican leadership has thrown out all precedent and instead of giving the House a chance to work its will, they are forcing us into a charade. Members will not be given a chance to offer amendments or alternatives to let the House work its will. Rather, all that is offered is 82 seconds for each Member to state a view on the complex and difficult subject of the Iraq war. Mr. Speaker, I tried to work on this resolution with my good friend, Chairman Hyde, on a bipartisan basis as I always have. But the Republican leadership expanded the original draft far beyond Iraq and rejected every one of our substantive suggestions. Mr. Speaker, this rule should allow all Members to offer their own ideas through amendments to this resolution. At a minimum, it should allow a Democratic substitute, and it should provide enough time so that every Member has at least 5 minutes to express his or her views. Mr. Speaker, just as the Democratic majority gave Republican minority leader Bob Michel an alternative in 1991 during the first Iraq debate, our Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, should have the same opportunity to offer a Democratic alternative with the same chance of prevailing in this House. Instead, the Republican leadership has turned what could have been a serious debate into a charade. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my friend and fellow Californian, Congressman Joe Baca for organizing this Special Order to condemn hate crimes and racial intolerance, and particularly to address the very dangerous and growing problem of the use of the Internet to spread racism, bigotry, prejudice and anti-Semitism. Mr. Speaker, I can speak personally of the horrors that can result from the propagation of hate. Such messages can be spread in many ways, but perhaps the most recent medium, the Internet, is the most effective and therefore the most dangerous. Modern technology has given us the ability to spread information and ideas far and wide almost instantly, and, as a result, the world has become very small indeed. Hate messages can circle the globe in minutes or even seconds. The circumstances of the terrorist arrests in Canada, the United States, and Europe just this last week are a reflection of how quickly messages of intolerance and exhortations to violence can be widely spread on the Internet. Because of my deep concern for human rights, I co-founded the Congressional Human Rights Caucus in 1983. In 1995, a number of colleagues joined me in founding the Congressional Task Force Against Anti-Semitism to address more specifically problems of racial intolerance, bigotry, prejudice, and anti-Semitism. I continue to co- chair both groups and remain steadfastly committed to fighting such ugly and vicious hatred. This is a battle in which we must all be engaged. We confront a central danger to America's national interests and cannot be complacent in the face of such threats. Mr. Speaker, the Anti-Defamation League, which monitors far-right extremists, reports that neo-Nazis and white supremacists have capitalized on the recent immigration reform debate and have ratcheted up their anti-Hispanic action. Racist use of the national debate to further their ideology in pursuit of a ``Whites only'' America is a hateful display and reminds us of the insidious racism, prejudice, and anti-Semitism that exists and that is spread on the Internet. The Anti-Defamation League reports a disturbing trend of increased violence against Hispanics and of persistently troubling levels of anti-Semitism. Games that target particular immigrant, ethnic or religious groups are indicative of the deeply-rooted hatred that we confront. The recent up-tick in the spread of racist shoot-to-kill video games on the Internet is very disconcerting. The level and intensity of attacks against Hispanics has reached dangerous new highs, with right-wing extremists joining anti-immigration groups. The recent racist protests and rallies held across our nation are a disgrace to our country and a threat to American stability. Immigration is likely the most important factor in the growth of extremist groups, and in their gaining new members. We must be vigilant is guarding against the racist, xenophobic sentiments surrounding our immigration debates. While such hatred is sadly not new, our recent debates and legislation are attracting the attention of extremists. Over the weekend, the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis protested nearby at the Antietamm National Battlefield in Sharpsburg, Maryland. Under the auspices of speaking out against ``black on white crime'' and illegal immigration, the message vocalized could not have been clearer: as a Klan member said, ``Mexicans, Jews, all these immigrants, we want them out of here . . .'' Such rhetoric is frightening. There is no gain, but loss by all, when hatred and anger are spread. Hispanics, regardless of their citizenship or immigration status, are increasingly becoming the targets of hatred and violence from white supremacists. In an attempt to call attention to some of the problems of modern tools for spreading hate, the Congressional Task Force Against Anti- Semitism sponsored a briefing last September that highlighted the importance of fostering international cooperation in combating internet hate, and of working with organizations like the OSCE to combat anti- Semitism globally. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join in working together to find ways to stop the use of the Internet to spread hate, so that we will not suffer horrible consequences. As I learned personally and tragically over six decades ago, words have consequences. Hate, intolerance, bigotry, prejudice, and Anti-Semitism lead to actions that a free society such as ours can--and must--never tolerate. We must speak out, we must take action.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I rise in strong support of this resolution. On July 18, we will mark the 12th anniversary of the senseless loss of 85 lives in the bombing of the Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina. We will commemorate with profound pain the loss of the families who forever had their loved ones brutally taken from them. And we will recall the shock felt in Jewish communities across the globe at this ferocious attack on innocent lives in a city where Jews had previously felt totally secure. Madam Speaker, we would now know that at least seven Iranian government officials, including the former Iranian Ambassador to Argentina, planned and orchestrated this vicious attack. There is little doubt that these Iranian officials called upon their Hezbollah stooges to execute their nefarious plans. We also know that the Hezbollah terrorist cell that carried out the attack received financial and logistical support from sympathizers in the tri-border region between Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. The suicide bomber himself probably entered South America and transited to the Argentine capital through this lawless frontier. The varied nationalities of those who were murdered in the bombing also reflect the international character of this shameful terrorist attack. Among the 85 victims there were six Bolivians, two Poles, and a Chilean. Although the modus operandi of the terrorists in the bombing has not been replicated since 1994, supporters and facilitators of Islamic terrorist organizations have gathered in scattered outposts throughout the Western Hemisphere. Operating from hard to reach areas in Chile, Colombia, Venezuela and Panama, these individuals lend financial and logistical assistance to terrorists organizations in the Middle East. Although these isolated communities have yet to metastasize into operational cells of Islamic terrorists, the threat to regional security remains strong and requires our constant vigilance. We must redouble our efforts to root out the fundraising networks in the Western Hemisphere of Islamic terrorists and to disperse the growing web of links between terrorist financiers and narcotics traffickers. Our important resolution furthers both of these goals. It promotes the establishment of a special task force in the Organization of American States to assist regional governments in investigating and combating the proliferation of Islamic terrorists within our hemisphere. Our resolution urges all Latin American and Caribbean countries to designate al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad as terrorist organizations. Madam Speaker, international terrorists have demonstrated that they will not rest in pursuit of their villainy. Our resolution once again puts them on notice that they will fail, whether they are in the Middle East or here in the Americas. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this important measure.

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

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

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, we on the Democratic side are pleased to support this legislation, with great admiration for a young lady. Mr. Speaker, 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, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Since the Taliban's ouster in Afghanistan, great strides have been made on the path towards democracy in that country. A freely elected president and parliament, a nascent professional national army, and the beginnings of economic development were all accomplished through nearly 5 years of development assistance and military commitments by our country and the international community. But the future of a stable, peaceful, and democratic Afghanistan is still gravely threatened. A resurgent Taliban with increasing terrorist attacks, the slow pace of reconstruction, and the scourge of opium poppies are reversing the tide of success. We may be nearing the point where we can lose Afghanistan again. It is in times like these when we learn who our true friends are in our global war against the enemies of democracy and freedom. During these critical moments, we come to appreciate more fully those countries that are willing to place their soldiers in harm's way in the international fight against terrorism, extremism, and tyranny. In the case of the international efforts in Afghanistan, Canada is one such country. Our neighbor Canada has 2,200 troops serving in Afghanistan. Canada has also assumed responsibility for the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar, which was originally established by our own military. In Kandahar, Canadian men and women are at the forefront of the coalition effort to combat the resurgent Taliban and other terrorist forces in the lawless southern portion of the country. Since 2002, the Canadian people have lost 16 soldiers and one diplomat in this struggle. Last month on the same day that the Canadian Parliament voted to extend its mission in Afghanistan, Canada suffered its first-ever female combat death. We honor the ultimate sacrifice that Captain Nichola Goddard made in service to her country and salute the brave efforts of all the men and women in uniform, Canadian and American, who fight shoulder to shoulder in Afghanistan. Madam Speaker, I urge all NATO members to follow Canada's example and commit troops to even the most violent areas of Afghanistan. I strongly support our resolution and ask all of my colleagues to do so as well. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, we have no objections on our side to our body's consideration of this measure, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. May I express my deep respect for my friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his indefatigable fight for human rights in China. I hope, Madam Speaker, you will have occasion to visit my office, because in the reception room you will find a large poster of a young unarmed Chinese student facing down a row of Chinese tanks on Tiananmen Square. This poster and this image is the indelible record of what happened at Tiananmen Square 17 years ago. That day, China's senior leaders huddled behind the walls of their compound near the Forbidden City. They had a critically important decision to make, whether to reach out to the students, like the one who is depicted in my poster, to the students and to the workers gathered in Tiananmen Square and address their concerns about party corruption and the lack of democracy, or whether they would seek to quash the movement with violent and vicious force if necessary. Sadly for the cause of freedom and justice, and for the lives of thousands of young Chinese citizens, the leadership of China made the wrong choice. Instead of entering into a meaningful dialogue with those gathered in the square, they launched a brutal crackdown on the democracy movement, killing thousands and imprisoning many more. The Chinese leadership hoped that the world would soon forget the Tiananmen Square massacre. Our job in Congress is to ensure that we never forget those who lost their lives in Tiananmen Square that day or the pro-democracy cause for which they fought. While the list of ongoing human rights violations in China is long, today I would like to focus on the Chinese Government control of the Internet. Despite its enormous power and wealth, China's ruling elite remains absolutely petrified that the free flow of information will undermine its political legitimacy, particularly among China's younger generation. The rulers in Beijing reason that if an average Chinese person can find out the truth about the Tiananmen massacre or the repression of the Falun Gong with a few key strokes on the computer, it is only a matter of time before the Chinese public will demand fundamental change in China. So rather than face the bitter truth, China has placed severe restrictions on the Internet and enlisted America's high-tech companies as their Internet police. In America's open and democratic system, based on our constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, these high-tech firms have thrived and their founders have amassed enormous wealth, running into the billions, great influence and prestige. But instead of using their power and creativity to bring greater openness and democracy to China, they have yielded to Beijing's outrageous demands simply for the sake of profits. Google, Microsoft and Yahoo should be developing new technologies to bypass government sensors and barriers to the Internet; but instead, they agreed to guard the gates themselves. Let me start with Yahoo. As we meet today, a Chinese citizen who had the courage to speak his mind on the Internet is in prison because Yahoo chose to share his name and address with the Chinese Government. It is bad enough that Beijing is so petrified of dissent that it throws dissidents behind bars for years on end and blacklists their families; but it is simply beyond comprehension, Madam Speaker, that an American company would play an active role in the Chinese suppression apparatus. Yahoo insists that it has no choice but to follow national laws and cites its adherence to modern German laws that prohibit neo-Nazi propaganda. This argument literally sickens me. Germany is a mature democracy, and its freely elected leaders have determined that they wish to prohibit the most severe forms of hate-mongering. China has a rubber-stamp parliament; and the Chinese Government places severe, far-reaching restrictions on freedom of speech and religious liberty. For an American firm such as Yahoo to comply willingly with laws that send someone to jail for simply expressing his views is unconscionable. Google and Microsoft similarly argue that they must comply with Chinese laws that prohibit on-line discussions and searching of certain ``sensitive'' subjects. So they have elected to become surrogate government censors, removing content and blocking information that offends the political sensitivities of the ruling elite in Beijing. They apparently have no moral problems with censoring the Tibetans and Falun Gong, both persecuted minorities in China. Do these companies have any standards at all? If Iran demands that Google block all information related to Jews except anti-Semitic propaganda, will it comply? What about a Sudanese request to censor information on the ongoing genocide in Darfur? Madam Speaker, several pieces of legislation have been introduced to stop American complicity with China's crackdown on the Internet. We must move forward with these bills expeditiously not only because it is good policy but because it would honor the memory of those who died in Tiananmen Square 17 years ago today, Madam Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to commend my good friend from Pennsylvania for his authorship of this most important resolution as I rise in strong support of it. Sometimes what is self-evident to civilized democratic governments is sadly lost on the Chinese leadership in Beijing. Such was the case in early May when a government-sponsored committee in Beijing elevated two Catholic priests to the level of bishop without the approval of the Vatican. Madam Speaker, I firmly believe that it is up to the Catholic Church to determine its leadership. Everywhere else in the world Pope Benedict the XVI selects the bishops, not communist atheists in some government politburo. But we should not be surprised by this latest intrusion into religious life by the Chinese government. Eleven years ago, this same government abducted a 6-year-old Tibetan boy who had been selected by the Dalai Lama as the next Panchen Lama, a title conferred on the second leader of Tibet. The boy and his family have never been seen again. He is believed to be the world's youngest political prisoner. Soon after the abduction of this little boy, Beijing selected its own Panchen Lama, without seeking approval from the spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhists, the Dalai Lama. Madam Speaker, whether it is Catholics or Tibetan Buddhists, China has an obligation under its own constitution and the international conventions to which it is a party to ensure religious freedom. It has failed miserably to live up to this sacred obligation. Our resolution highlights the latest outrage in China's systematic denial of religious liberty to its own citizens. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution. 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, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Nearly three decades after the normalization of relations, Beijing and Washington have a mature, evolving relationship. Our two countries are working cooperatively on a broad range of issues facing the world from North Korea to matters before the U.N. Security Council. But in our effort to maintain this cooperative spirit, we must not sugar-coat the areas of intense disagreement between the United States and China. Beijing's systematic denial of religious liberty to the Chinese people is one of the darkest episodes in modern Chinese history. Pushing for religious tolerance must remain at the core of our bilateral agenda with Beijing, regardless of China's Government's predictably negative reactions to our entreaties. The leadership in Beijing must understand that we will never have a fully normal relationship with China until there is measurable progress on a broad range of human rights issues, including religious freedom. As this resolution notes, an intolerably long list of religions and faiths are squarely in the cross-hairs of the Chinese Government. The treatment of Tibetans, Catholics, and the Falun Gong is emblematic of the broader Chinese campaign against those who worship in an unauthorized manner. In the case of Tibetan Buddhists, Beijing has a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that it has opened a new chapter in an otherwise tragic story of the Chinese repression and marginalization of the Tibetans in their own land. While we are pleased that China has held five rounds of discussions with representatives of His Holiness the Dalai Lama regarding the future of Tibet, the talks have not produced any concrete results, and our patience is wearing thin. If Beijing truly cares about preserving Tibet's unique religious and cultural heritage, it should invite the Dalai Lama to visit China and Tibet in the near future. Chinese leaders should also negotiate a deal with the Dalai Lama that allows His Holiness to return permanently to Tibet to manage the religious and cultural and economic affairs of the Tibetan people. Religious freedom is a right due all Chinese, whether Tibetan, members of the Catholic Church or the Falun Gong spiritual movement. Tens of thousands of Falun Gong adherents have been locked away in psychiatric institutions. They have been tortured and jailed and even killed for refusing to renounce their faith. What a tragedy, Madam Speaker. The resolution before us shines the spotlight on China's horrendous record of religious freedom. The words in our resolution will cause great discomfort in Beijing. But when dealing with friends, it is far better to lay the facts on the table than to sweep the bitter truth under the rug. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me first thank the sponsor of the this resolution, my good friend and colleague on the International Relations Committee, Congressman Meeks. He is a strong advocate, both for the Caribbean Basin and for people of African ancestry. I commend his dedication to these matters. Madam Speaker, the short but significant history of Guyana illustrates the benefits that accrue to a nation that respects human rights and the rule of law, rejects the empty promises of Marxism- Leninism, and works closely with other democratic nations. For the first 25 years after independence, successive Guyanese governments attempted to institute a socialist economy and closely coordinated their foreign policies with the so-called Non-Aligned Movement. The political rights of average Guyanese were systematically denied. And the jungles of Guyana served as the home of the infamous Jonestown cult that took the life of our colleague, Congressman Leo Ryan, my friend and distinguished predecessor. Spurred by frustration with increasing political repression and poor economic performance, hundreds of thousands of Guyanese sought freedom by immigrating to our shores and to Canada. In the last decade, Guyana has begun to turn itself around. The country has held several free and fair elections, it has generally respected human rights, and it has adopted market-friendly economic policies. Guyana is becoming one of our trusted allies and is cooperating with us against narcotics trafficking and in the global war on terror. Madam Speaker, as a result of Guyana's reorientation toward the principles that we hold dear, Guyana was one of only nine threshold countries under the Millennium Challenge Account when the first Millennium Challenge Account beneficiaries were chosen in 2004. The designation as a threshold country recognizes Guyana's commitment to promoting democratic freedoms, investing in its people, providing economic opportunities for its citizenry. In January 2003, Guyana was one of only two countries in our hemisphere to be included in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Inclusion in this program indicates that a country faces grave challenges from HIV/AIDS, a distinction that Guyana no doubt would have preferred to have been spared, but selection for funds under this program also reflects a meaningful improvement in the relationship between Guyana and the United States and our shared commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS. Madam Speaker, Guyana has come a long way in the last 40 years. On the foundation of this remarkable growth, we and our Guyanese neighbors will have even greater opportunities in the next four decades to strengthen the diplomatic, economic, and social ties that unite us. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues that I am introducing legislation to protect the privacy rights of Americans. This bill will require Federal agencies that possess electronic data containing personal information to disclose any unauthorized acquisition of such information. Under this legislation, the same requirement will be made of ``people''--corporations, institutions and individuals--who engage in interstate commerce. The point is simple: People should be notified when information about them that is personal and potentially sensitive is stolen from a corporation or a government agency. We cannot rely on these entities to report such a theft on their own, since they might try to cover up the data loss to avoid adverse publicity. The most salient example of the need for such protection is the recent shameful episode in which it took the Veterans Administration three weeks to announce that personal information including names, birth dates, and social security numbers of millions of veterans had been stolen from the home of a VA employee. Keeping the problem under wraps for three weeks is not the way to protect our veterans from the potential theft of their identities. Many veterans have called my office expressing concern about their financial safety, and I am appalled the VA has not done more to protect them. The stolen information included the name, social security number, and date of birth for approximately 19.6 million veterans. Disability ratings for some veterans were also included in these files. On June 6, 2006, the VA announced that the stolen files might also have included data on 1.1 million active duty members of the military, 430,000 members of the National Guard, and 645,000 members of the Reserves. On June 8, 2006, the House Committee on Government Reform, on which I serve, conducted a hearing entitled, ``Once More into the Data Breach: The Security of Personal Information at Federal Agencies.'' During the hearing, U.S. Comptroller General David Walker testified that legislation is needed requiring agencies to notify those whose privacy is violated. The Comptroller General said, ``Public disclosure of major data breaches is a key step to make sure personal data is safeguarded.'' Congress should act on this issue, and it is time for us to give Americans the notice they need to protect themselves from identity thieves. My colleague, Senator Dianne Feinstein, first introduced the Senate version of the bill I am introducing today. I commend her excellent work in this area, and I am hopeful that moving this bill in the House will expedite needed action.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, we have no objections on our side to this body's consideration of this measure, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, my friend and colleague Chairman Hyde and I are strong friends of Egypt and we are proud cosponsors of this amendment. We are sponsors of this amendment because we are fed up with an Egyptian government that has received well over $50 billion from United States taxpayers in the past quarter century, yet it will not treat its citizens with dignity and respect. We are fed up with an Egypt that suppresses dissent, an Egypt that suffocates the secular liberal opposition, throws its leaders in jail on trumped-up charges, an Egypt that takes out its wrath on a man called Ayman Nour, who finished a distant second in President Mubarak's landslide victory last year. I am sickened, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Nour is likely to spend the next 5 years of his life behind bars on transparently manufactured charges when we know his only real crime was having the temerity to wage a political campaign against Mr. Mubarak. We are fed up with and are not fooled by an Egyptian government that stages parliamentary elections, but prevents voters from reaching the polls. We are fed up with an Egyptian government that punishes judges who merely want to insist on judicial independence and ignores its promises to end emergency law and instead extends it. We are fed up with and deeply disappointed in an Egyptian government that suspended the activities of the International Republican Institute in Egypt simply because the local director criticized the pace of reform in Egypt. We are fed up with an Egypt that is one of the leaders among the so- called group of 77 who are working hard to derail the critical United Nations reforms proposed by Kofi Annan, the Secretary General, which have bipartisan and strong support here in this Congress. We are fed up with an Egypt that has nearly 500,000 active duty troops in its military, yet can do nothing in the international effort in Afghanistan. We are fed up with an Egypt whose peace with Israel remains frigid, far colder than it ought to be, as we approach the 27th anniversary of the peace treaty. Mr. Chairman, I do not denigrate the importance of our alliance with Egypt and I deeply appreciate the importance of the Israeli-Egyptian peace. But I do feel that we deserve more, much more for our generosity than the laundry list of problems I have only partially described. I want the United States to maintain the strongest possible relations with Egypt. As you know, Chairman Hyde and I have made efforts in the past to communicate this to Egypt in clear and unmistakable legislative language. The approach in our amendment is not precisely the approach I would have championed. Nevertheless, I consider it absolutely critical that President Mubarak understand the deep dissatisfaction here with the course of events in Egypt, particularly regarding the decline of human rights and personal freedoms. It is also critical that the Egyptian people understand that we are taking this action in support of those moderate political parties, human rights advocates and independent judges who are supporting change in Egypt. I believe this amendment sends a message to President Mubarak and to the Egyptian people in a manner that is loud, clear, friendly and measured. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, communicating our deep disappointment in our ally Egypt, and boosting simultaneously the underfunded and critical causes of the tragedy in Darfur and fighting HIV/AIDS globally.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 27, 2006, the annual ceremony to observe Yom Hashoah, the Day of Remembrance for victims of the Holocaust, was held in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol. This year's theme, ``Legacies of Justice,'' commemorated the 60th anniversary of the International Military Tribunal which was held at Nuremburg, Germany, and was responsible for attempting to seek justice for an almost unimaginable scale of criminal behavior. Members of Congress joined with representatives of the diplomatic corps, Executive and Judicial Branch officials, and hundreds of Holocaust survivors and their families to commemorate the anniversary of the historical beginning of the trials at Nuremburg. This moving ceremony featured a stirring address by Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick. Deputy Secretary Zoellick heads the Bush administration's efforts to end the genocide in Darfur, and establish peace and reconciliation throughout Sudan. Sixty years ago, the International Military Tribunal (IMT) delivered verdicts against those Nazis charged with war crimes. The actions of the IMT were a watershed moment in international justice, establishing precedents in international law, documenting the historical record and in seeking some beginning, however inadequate, in a search for justice. The Nuremburg trials have left a legacy of justice not only to those victims of the Holocaust, but also to preventing and prosecuting similar crimes in the future. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the outstanding remarks of Deputy Secretary Robert B. Zoellick be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to study and ponder his thoughtful address. Remarks at the National Civic Commemoration of the Days of Remembrance

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month to recognize the proud past Asian Pacific Americans have woven into our history and the important contributions they offer our society today. I have the great honor of representing an incredibly diverse 12th Congressional district of California, where I am proud to say, we have the largest population of Filipinos outside the Philippines and one of the largest populations of Asian Pacific Americans in the entire United States. We choose to recognize Asian Pacific Americans (APA) in May because of two anniversaries this month: the arrival in the United States of the first Japanese immigrants in 1843 and the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869. Both are landmark events that contributed greatly to the formation of our country and prosperity. The APA Community is a modern example of the American dream. Arriving as immigrants, and overcoming adversity, years of discrimination and at times shocking treatment at the hands of government and citizens alike, they have become one of the most successful and educated minority populations. Their unique contribution to areas such as business, science, technology, art and entertainment are unrivaled. With 15 million residents, they are also the fastest growing population in our country and are estimated to reach 33 million by 2050. This hard working community is responsible for much of the success and development of our great nation. In this age of immigration debate, the APA community reminds us that we are ourselves a country of immigrants and the APA community represents what is best about America with their dedication and loyalty to fighting for freedom. As we remember how they have helped to enhance the quality of our communities and country, we should also ask how we could help to fight the challenges they face. Although APA's have a high percentage of college graduates for a minority population, at 50 percent, they still face growing poverty issues. Although the Asian Pacific American community has been very successful many still face unfair problems connected with its status as a minority. When budget cuts to education and health care are made, the Asian American community suffers greatly. Fourteen percent of the APA community has incomes at or below the poverty line. With gas prices and college tuitions rising, the last five years has seen 28,000 Asian Americans fall into poverty. 1.1 million small businesses are owned by APAs and have been hurt by reductions in funding for small businesses. 312,000 Asian Pacific Americans are veterans. Having defended our country, they deserve benefits such as health care, which have been cut for the fourth year in a row. Last year, in the 108th session of Congress, I cosponsored legislation that gave Filipino American veterans who were a legal alien or citizen, the same health and pension benefits that our other veterans receive. I will continue to fight for equal treatment in the future. Mr. Speaker, as we congratulate Asian Pacific Americans for their accomplishments, we also recognize their struggles. Asian Pacific Americans contribute so much to our nation and we must ensure that this community is treated with the great respect it richly deserves. I urge all my colleagues to join me in honoring Asian Pacific Americans.