Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) of the San Carlos School District, located in my Congressional District, as well as the 34th Anniversary of its historic and infamous Chickens' Ball. This biennial event has helped to raise money for San Carlos' public schools as well as create ties within the community for the past 66 years. This creative means of raising funds was first proposed by middle school teacher and PTA member, Howard J. Demeke, in 1939. Mr. Demeke himself was a regular patron of the historic San Francisco Barbary Coast Chickens' Ball, a live-entertainment show performed by women of a certain reputation in various saloons. This philanthropy-oriented event had been around since the early 1900s and included a contest of various colorful and riotous acts. The winner of the best act was awarded amounts of gold to then be donated to a designated charity. Under Mr. Demeke' s request to the San Carlos PTA, the Chickens' Ball left the swanky scene of the saloon and was reborn in San Carlos for the purpose of raising money for the school district's milk funds. Members of the PTA, local clubs and members of the community joined together to plan comedy and entertainment skits, each competing for a large sum of donated money. The ball was an enormous success and has continued to be for the past six decades with all proceeds directly benefiting the schools of San Carlos. I personally had the pleasure of attending the 34th Biennial San Carlos Chickens' Ball this year, with my lovely wife Annette. As we discovered, the Chickens' Ball requires the attention and participation of the audience, making each second at the show memorable. I congratulate each act unequivocally for the brave hilarity exhibited on stage by each performer. Mr. Speaker, please join me in saluting and congratulating the outstanding Parent-Teacher Association of the San Carlos School District, for their dedication to our community and the quality of education for our children, through the most creative Chickens' Ball.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, in conclusion I reject the claim that our bill does not allow our government to support worthwhile projects for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. In fact, it makes every possible allowance for such projects, consistent with U.S. national interests. First of all, our legislation makes an explicit exception for supporting the basic human health needs of the Palestinian people. Second, it includes a waiver that requires the President only to certify that such assistance furthers our national security interests. That is not an unreasonably high standard to meet, Madam Speaker, given our need to ensure that such projects do not in any way benefit Hamas, either politically or economically. Nor, Madam Speaker, is it too much to ask that the consultation period be a bit longer than usual--25 days instead of 15--given this unprecedented situation, in which we would provide aid to a people whose government is controlled by terrorists. This is new territory, and we owe it to the taxpayers to proceed cautiously. Indeed, we cannot be sure that the new Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority will not exert control over schools and other institutions currently run by non- governmental organizations. In this unusual and potentially explosive situation, it seems to me the very least we should ask is that our assistance to the Palestinian people clearly further our national security interests. This is our minimal obligation to our constituents. We will insist on this basic standard, Madam Speaker, and we will give assistance for appropriate purposes--and I am quite sure the level of our assistance will continue to be greater than that of any Arab nation, including those who have been wallowing in ever-increasing windfall profits over the past three years. Also, Madam Speaker, H.R. 4681 cuts off U.S. contact with those who represent terrorism, not those who represent democracy. H.R. 4681 establishes a policy that the U.S. should not negotiate or have substantive contacts with terrorist organizations such as Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad. H.R. 4681 explicitly recognizes that working with Palestinian moderates is in U.S. interest by allowing assistance to be provided to President Abbas to facilitate a peaceful resolution of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. H.R. 4681 allows travel to the UN and gives the President an authority to waive this restriction to allow Palestinian moderates who are in the Palestinian Legislative Council to come to the United States to visit. I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 4681.

Mr. LANTOS. I appreciate my good friend yielding, and allow me to point out the fatal flaw in your logic. We are not discussing the fact that some of us occasionally support the administration, and you just expressed great delight that on this issue you find yourself on the side of the administration. The issue logically is flexibility. The people who have criticized this administration most vigorously over the years have claimed that the administration is riding roughshod over the Congress, not asking for more flexibility. This is a spurious argument. This is a phony argument. This administration, as do all administrations, wants flexibility. They do not want congressional restraints. Our legislation provides for restraints because we are a co-equal branch of government, and we wish to express the policies that we want to see our government pursue. To claim that on this issue the administration should have total flexibility is contrary to the interests of the Congress as a body.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), my good friend and a distinguished senior member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, before yielding, I want to thank my good friend from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur, for her thoughtful and very serious comments, as I want to express my appreciation to all of my colleagues who have spoken against this resolution. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished senior member of the International Relations Committee.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) 5\3/4\ minutes.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, before yielding the balance of our time to my good friend from Texas, let me express my deepest appreciation to my friend from Florida, who has done her usual extraordinary job, for her principled statement and impeccable logic. We are all in her debt. I want to express my deep appreciation to my very good friend from Oregon for his unduly gracious comments which I deeply appreciate. And I want to thank all of my colleagues who have spoken on all sides of this issue. This has been an excellent debate, and it is appropriate that it should be wound up by one of our best debaters, my friend from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee. I yield her the balance of our time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to my good friend and our distinguished colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. LANTOS. We appreciate the gentleman's support. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before yielding time, I would like to just say a word about the avalanche of misrepresentations which we have heard on this floor. This legislation does not in any sense provide any punishment for the Palestinian people, just the opposite. It is carefully crafted and aimed at the terrorist organization called Hamas. I did not know, Mr. Speaker, when I spoke about the 16-year-old young American citizen who was killed by Hamas that he is the cousin of one of our colleagues, and I would like to extend my condolences to my friend from Virginia who suffered this personal loss. The avalanche of misrepresentations can only be ascribed to a sloppy reading of this legislation. It is extremely carefully crafted, and if, in fact, the issue would not be as serious, I would find it ludicrous that some of the sharpest critics of the Bush administration have suddenly found great affection for the Bush administration because, like all other administrations, it wants total flexibility. It is ludicrous that the most virulent critics of the Bush administration suddenly find themselves in bed with the Bush administration. This is, to say the least, unseemly. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip, my good friend.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and yield myself as much time as I may consume. During the course of this debate, I will rebut point-by-point the items raised by my good friend from Oregon, for whom I have great respect and great affection. But let me just say that while I am convinced that his position is motivated by the best of intentions, he totally misrepresents the nature of our legislation. Mr. Speaker, it was my great pleasure to join my friend and distinguished colleague, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, in introducing the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. It has also been an honor to work with the chairman of the committee, Henry Hyde, in bringing the bill to the floor in its present form. I would like to thank all 295 of my colleagues who are cosponsors of this bill, which was reported out of the International Relations Committee on a bipartisan vote of 36-2. I repeat, the legislation was reported out of the International Relations Committee representing the broadest spectrum of views and positions by a vote of 36-2. This is a bill that enjoys the broadest bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, a little more than a month ago, a 16-year-old boy from Florida, Daniel Wultz, arrived in Israel with his family. They were celebrating Passover, which commemorates Jewish liberation from brutality long ago. On a pleasant evening in Tel Aviv, Daniel met his father for dinner at a popular falafel restaurant in a working-class neighborhood. Moments later, a Palestinian terrorist detonated 30 pounds of explosives just a few feet from the father and son. Daniel suffered severe internal injuries, and his leg had to be amputated. After a valiant struggle for survival, Daniel died last week. As for his father, he faces a long and painful recovery physically; the psychological repercussions one can only speculate on. This tragedy was compounded several times over, Mr. Speaker. In this one terrorist incident, perpetrated by Hamas, 10 people were murdered, more than 60 were injured, and hundreds of loved ones are suffering the atrocities, the effects of these atrocities for the rest of their lives. Mr. Speaker, during the murderous Intifada, orchestrated, planned and perpetrated by Hamas, more than 1,000 Israelis were killed in incidents like this recent one, barbarous, random, sneak attacks on men, women and children, just going about their lives. Given its comparatively small population, less than 6 million, the loss of 1,000 innocent lives in Israel is the equivalent of losing 50,000 here in the United States. I wonder how many of our colleagues would stand up for the terrorists if we had lost 50,000, not 3,000 on 9/11. What was the response of the Hamas government to the restaurant bombing? The spokesman for Hamas said that it was, and I quote, Mr. Speaker, ``legal.'' This monstrous act, the most recent terrorist attack, killed 10 people, and Hamas leadership says, it's legal. No condemnation, no promise of pursuing the perpetrators of this vicious crime; just a blanket endorsement of suicide attacks on both American and Israeli citizens. Now, despite the pathetically naive hopes of some that Hamas would change its stripes upon assuming power, if anything, the anti-Israel rhetoric has only been stepped up. The foreign minister of the terrorist government, Mahmoud al-Zahar, recently told the world that he dreams of, and I am quoting again, Mr. Speaker, ``hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home, which does not show Israel on it, because there is no place for the State of Israel on this land.'' So much for moderation. Mr. Speaker, such statements by Hamas government officials make crystal clear the rationale for our legislation. We must isolate the new terrorist authority in the West Bank and Gaza. The situation in the Middle East is alarming. The Palestinian Authority is now governed by a group of killers, like Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who believes that Israel, quote, should be wiped off the map. It is therefore incumbent upon us, Mr. Speaker, as the ally and long- time supporter of the democratic State of Israel, to do everything we can to demonstrate the bankruptcy of Hamas' vision and to ensure that Hamas receives no help from the United States in implementing its evil plans. Our bill does exactly that. We will end all assistance to the Palestinian Authority with exceptions for humanitarian aid. We will also end all contact between U.S. diplomats and the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority. Our goal, Mr. Speaker, is not to punish the Palestinian people. Our goal is to demonstrate to them, and to their government, that hatred, murder, assassination and non-recognition of neighbors is unacceptable in a civilized world. Accordingly, we want to make sure that the U.S. taxpayer will not supply one penny of aid for which the Hamas government can claim any credit, and we want to make sure that Hamas and its government are accorded absolutely no legitimacy by the United States or our diplomatic representatives. Our bill, of course, recognizes that humanitarian emergencies will arise and that we should be supportive of appropriate NGO activities. Just to cite one example, Mr. Speaker, I wrote Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently asking that the United States provide funding to assist the Palestinians in dealing with the serious outbreak of avian flu in the Gaza Strip, and I am pleased that our government has been responsive to my request. I think we would all agree on continuing the U.S. tradition of dealing with the humanitarian needs of any people, including the Palestinian people. I am sure that all of my colleagues will join me in praising the government of Israel for the plan it announced just yesterday to release $11 million and let these funds be used for medicine and equipment for Palestinian hospitals, bypassing entirely the terrorist government of Hamas. Mr. Speaker, representatives of the United States have been meeting with their counterparts from Russia, the United Nations and the European Union to discuss the financial crisis that Palestinians have faced since Hamas came to power. Our bill is fully consistent with the positions and policies of the so-called quartet. Mr. Speaker, we in this Congress are sickened by the fact that the Palestinians chose Hamas as their leader, and we are sickened and appalled by everything that Hamas stands for. Our bill, H.R. 4681, demonstrates that America will stand firm in the fight against terrorism, while remaining true to the hope for a peaceful Middle East. Our legislation will serve as a model for the right policy to take against terrorists, however they take power, and on behalf of the democratic ally that is the target of suicide bombings by a governmentally-organized campaign. Allow me a personal word, Mr. Speaker. As all of my colleagues know, I am the only Holocaust survivor ever elected to the Congress of the United States. My family was wiped out by a government that systematically sought to eliminate an entire people. I am here today to tell you that what Hamas has in mind is a holocaust on the installment plan. I repeat, I am here today to tell you that what Hamas has in mind is a holocaust on the installment plan. It is being done one atrocity at a time. As long as support continues to flow to Hamas, this holocaust on the installment plan will continue, and ultimately, it might succeed. But our bill will stop it. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important, vital, bipartisan piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. If I may take the floor, I fully agree with the interpretation of my friend from Massachusetts. We are not looking for protection from Hamas. There is no perfection in any of the governments with which we have diplomatic relations and which we support with huge amounts like the government of Egypt. We are merely asking for minimal standards of civilized behavior, the termination of suicide bombings and the acceptance of their neighbor in peace.

Mr. LANTOS. No, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the motion.

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

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), my good friend. (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague on the International Relations Committee from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler). I want to thank Mr. Shuster for his extraordinarily gracious gesture. I also want to express my appreciation to Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the ranking member on that subcommittee, Eleanor Holmes Norton. I particularly want to thank my dear friend and colleague of many years, Chris Shays, for again joining with me in sponsoring a significant and major humane piece of legislation. But my most sincere thanks go to my wife, Annette, who has been my guiding light on all humane pieces of legislation I have had the privilege of working on. Mr. Speaker, the work of my colleagues, along with the Herculean efforts of all the animal welfare organizations, will ensure not only the safety of household pets and service animals but of their owners in moments of potential fatal danger. Families will be able to prepare and evacuate from a disaster with more confidence and security knowing that all of their family members and their pets will be secure. Mr. Speaker, the devastation in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama brought unbelievable images into every American home night after night. The loss of life and property was staggering. But on top of all of that, the sight of evacuees having to choose between being rescued or remaining with their pets, perhaps even having to leave behind their service animals they rely on every day, was just heartbreaking. I was watching television one night, Mr. Speaker, and I saw a 7-year- old little boy with his dog. His family lost everything, and all they had left was their dog. And since legislation such as ours was not yet on the statute books, the dog was taken away from this little boy. To watch his face was a singularly revealing and tragic experience. This legislation was born that moment. Many pieces of legislation we pass in this body are the result of months and years of study and research and preparation. Not this bill. This bill was born the moment the 7-year-old little fellow had to give up his dog because there was no provision to provide shelter for his pet. The Pet Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act will put an end to all of this. Until today, accommodating families with pets or disabled citizens with service animals was never considered an essential part of any evacuation plan. Our PETS Act requires State and local emergency preparedness authorities to include in their evacuation plans provisions to accommodate pets or service animals in case of a disaster. The lack of planning in the past interfered with disaster operations in New Orleans where people who were worried about losing their animal companions often refused rescuers' help. If evacuees know that their pets, who obviously are considered members of their family, are in good hands, they will be willing to cooperate with authorities. According to the Humane Society of the United States, Mr. Speaker, there are 65 million dogs and 77 million cats owned as pets by American families. Thousands of visually impaired people depend on guide dogs to get around. These faithful pet owners and visually impaired citizens must be able to evacuate if in the path of harm, and they must know that all members of their family will be safe. Since the gulf coast hurricanes, this Nation has endured other weather events. In many cases, local authorities made impromptu plans for people with pets or service animals. This demonstrates that authorities are capable of making effective plans for people with pets and service animals. But we cannot let the lessons learned from the gulf coast hurricanes be forgotten. Our PETS Act will ensure that years from now States will continue to plan for their pet and service animal populations. This will ensure a smooth and safe evacuation for all members of the family and their pets and service animals. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this potentially life-saving legislation, life-saving with respect to the animals we love, and life-saving with respect to members of our families.

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

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, May 19, to commemorate the 125th anniversary of the birth of the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, a post-World War I revolutionary leader who demonstrated that Islam and modernity are fully compatible. His example provides instruction and hope for our own era. Ataturk died at the young age of 57 in 1938. Yet, in a short period of time starting with the end of World War I, Ataturk was able to build a nation from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire, establish secular rule, and lay the groundwork for democratic development. His vision for his overwhelmingly Muslim nation was dominated by two concepts: secularism and progress. In his words, ``In an age when inventions and the wonders of science are bringing change after change in the conditions of life, nations cannot maintain their existence by age-old mentalities and tradition-worshipping.'' Mr. Speaker, Ataturk's reforms covered virtually every area of public life--political, cultural, legal, educational, and economic--all geared toward bringing the new Turkish nation to the level of what Ataturk called ``contemporary civilization.'' Some of the changes were monumental, such as abolishing the caliphate, recognizing equal rights for men and women, discarding the Arabic alphabet in favor of Latin letters, and adopting secular law. Others were seemingly minor, such as reforming traditional styles of dress and mandating surnames. His leadership style was epitomized by the alphabet reform. A language commission he appointed endorsed the reform in 1928 and urged that it be phased in over fifteen years. Ataturk had a different time- frame in mind. He phased it in over six months, punctuating his decision with trips around the country in which he personally gave public instruction in the new alphabet. This reform has wrought a fundamental change in Turkey's outlook, as millions of Turks, schooled in the Latin alphabet, have turned westward for their second languages and the learning to which those languages are the key. As a champion of women's rights, Mr. Speaker, Ataturk encouraged women to become doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, writers, and politicians. His credo in this regard was stated as a simple equation in a speech in 1926: ``If a society of men and women is content to apply progress and education to one-half of itself, such a society is weakened by half.'' It is unfortunate that, to this very day, too many nations in the Middle East cannot grasp that easy math. When I met Pakistani President Musharraf four years ago, I gave him a copy of Andrew Mango's authoritative biography of Ataturk. ``Follow Ataturk's vision,'' I urged him, ``and you will put Pakistan on the path to progress.'' Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that this is the right advice for the leaders of every Muslim nation. With forward-looking vision, leadership, and determination in the mold of Ataturk, the entire region could expect a future of secularism, tolerance, democracy, and material progress.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 795. The cruel and deadly terrorist attacks last month in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula took place on the weekend of the Coptic Orthodox Easter and an Egyptian national holiday commemorating the Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai. Its casualties included Egyptian Muslims and Egyptian Christians, as well as foreigners. In all, 18 people were murdered--12 of them Egyptian--and 85 wounded. These attacks have proven once again that the extreme ideology of violent Islamic fundamentalism poses a danger not only to the Western World but to all peace-loving people on the globe. The terrorists do not distinguish between Christians, Jews, or Muslims--or between Arabs and non-Arabs--in their search to destroy the core values of civilization. Mr. Speaker, at this difficult time we extend our deepest sympathies to the Egyptian people--and to the loved ones of all those of many nations who perished in the April 24 bombings. We also offer sincere expressions of concern to all those wounded in the bombings on April 24 and 26--in the latter of which only the would-be murderers themselves lost their lives. The rise of terrorism in the once placid Sinai is a source of great concern to Egypt, its neighbors, and to all its friends. This was the third major bombing at Sinai resorts in the past 18 months, following attacks on Taba and its environs on October 7, 2004, which left 34 dead, and on Sharm el-Sheikh on July 23, 2005, which murdered 64. The April 26 attack to which I alluded a moment ago was directed at both Egyptian police and a contingent of the U.S.-led Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) in the Sinai, people who have no purpose other than preserving the peace between Israel and Egypt. We want the Egyptian people to know they have our full support as they seek to hunt down those who planned and implemented all these heinous attacks and as they seek to eradicate the scourge of fundamentalist violence that has afflicted Egypt in ebbs and flows over the years--the same scourge that took the life of Anwar Sadat, one of the towering figures of the twentieth century, as well as the life of Farag Hoda, a brilliant author and highly principled secularist. I believe the ultimate answer to this problem lies in education, economic development, and political reform. But now is not the time to debate such issues. For now, Mr. Speaker, let us stand as one with the Egyptian people and government in opposing and rejecting the violent ideology of hate, of which Egypt has been but the latest victim. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in doing likewise.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the United States lost an intellectual giant in the passing of economist and public figure John Kenneth Galbraith. Both he and I were immigrants to the United States--he from Canada, I from Hungary--and we both earned a Ph.D. in economics from the University of California, Berkeley. But I came to find that we had much more in common than that. When I ran my very first race for Congress in 1980, Mr. Speaker, I received an unsolicited contribution--and as my colleagues know, that is truly remarkable for a challenger seeking to upset an incumbent member of Congress. The contribution was from John Kenneth Galbraith. The hand-written message with the check said, ``From one economist to another.'' He added that he was delighted to see economist leaping into the political arena. I cannot tell you how touched I was, not only at receiving an unbidden sign of support from someone so well-known and respected, but also to realize that a man of his caliber was in my corner. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Galbraith was a profoundly influential American economist and a prolific author. His four dozen books and more than 1,000 articles covered an amazing breadth of subjects, from Keynesian economic theory to political progressivism and fiction. Many of his volumes were bestsellers in the late 1950s and during the 1960s; they including memorable titles such as The Affluent Society and The Industrial State. He is widely quoted. Some of his most pithy observations are among the most profound. For example, he once noted that ``all successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door.'' And who can forget that it was Galbraith who said, ``In economics, the majority is always wrong.'' John Kenneth Galbraith was a dynamic presence with a nimble political mind. He advised U.S. Presidents from Roosevelt to Clinton and was actively engaged in the Presidential campaigns of John Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy. And he served with great distinction as U.S. Ambassador to India from 1961-63. In the year 2000, President Clinton awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award recognizing exceptionally meritorious service. He was also awarded the Padma Vibhushan, India's second highest civilian award, for his contributions to strengthening ties between India and United States. It is difficult today to recall another man whose judgment and advice was valued by so many for so long, and who also managed to touch so many personally. My wife Annette and I extend our heartfelt condolences to his devoted wife of nearly 70 years, Catherine, and their sons Alan, Peter, and James. Mr. Speaker, John Kenneth Galbraith was an extraordinary human being and a dear friend whose prodigious life's work helped shape American politics and economics. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this astonishing individual.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to reflect on the distinguished legacy of United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, a great friend of this Congress and of the American people, and a dear friend of our family. Kofi Annan began his service as Secretary General in January 1997, and his second five-year term will be completed in December of this year. Although he is the seventh individual to serve as Secretary General in the history of the United Nations, he is the first individual to be selected for this position from the ranks of U.N. staff. As the Secretary General completes his work in New York, Mr. Speaker, the world's luminaries will weigh in and a consensus will quickly emerge that Kofi Annan is the United Nations' greatest secretary general. Because Kofi and his wife Nanne are dear personal friends of my wife, Annette, and me, I want to be the first to reflect on the remarkable term of this outstanding international civil servant. Mr. Speaker, in looking back on the decade that Kofi Annan has shaped the United Nations, it is clear that his term has been sustained by a powerful vision--his belief that this complicated world body could become something much more than a Cold War relic useful only for convening meetings and servicing international conferences. Since Secretary General Annan's first day on the job, he has been driven by the conviction that the United Nations must undergo what he has called a ``strategic refit'' to help the organization reach its full potential in the 21st century, to better serve the pressing needs of mankind that individual states are unable or unwilling to meet. Every day for the last decade, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary General has worked tirelessly, against impossible odds, to convince 191 sovereign states to let him reshape the organization in line with his vision. This has been no small task, given that each one of these 191 states-- democracies, monarchies, military juntas, and brutal dictatorships--is jealous of its own sovereign rights. As we enter the closing months of Kofi Annan's term at the helm of the most important and most unruly international organization, we can say with absolute confidence that--against all odds--he has succeeded in this project. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most profound measure of Kofi's success was the ground-breaking consensus agreement he led the United Nations to adopt last September at an historic summit of more than 100 heads of state. This agreement consisted of a binding pledge by all U.N. member states to recognize a collective ``responsibility to protect'' individuals threatened with genocide, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity, a responsibility that supercedes the sovereignty of any individual state. Kofi Annan's inspiration for his effort to reshape the fundamental principles underlying the United Nations grew out of his profound sadness in the tragic failure of the global community to protect its most vulnerable citizens in Srebrenica, Bosnia, and in Rwanda. Mr. Speaker, during the decade between the latter of these two tragedies and that World Summit pledge last September, Secretary General Annan, has focused U.N. activities on three goals: preventing conflict, promoting democracies, and eradicating poverty. He has done this methodically and with steely determination, step by step, surmounting numerous pitfalls and hurdles along the way. Despite inheriting a United Nations beset with a sclerotic bureaucracy and severely limited resources, Kofi Annan's achievement in mobilizing the world body to start to close what he has called ``the chasm between [those who are] rich and poor, free and fettered, privileged and humiliated.'' This effort has been breathtaking in scope and scale. In the past nine years under Secretary General Annan's watch, Mr. Speaker, the number of civilian soldiers deployed on U.N. peacekeeping missions has increased from 20,000 to 80,000, bringing hope and a measure of stability to damaged lives in places like Liberia, Burundi, Haiti, the Ivory Coast, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. U.N. capacity to move beyond simply keeping the peace to helping shell-shocked societies recover and prosper has also been greatly enhanced under Kofi Annan's leadership. His most notable accomplishment in this process was to establish a U.N. Peacebuilding Commission during that World Summit last September. Mr. Speaker, the Secretary General's efforts to build U.N. capacity to promote democracy have also enjoyed remarkable success. During his tenure the Secretariat's Political Office has helped conduct more than 100 successful elections, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan. The people involved in this enterprise have also helped achieve democratic openings in places previously thought to be beyond democracy's reach, such as Georgia, Ukraine, Sierra Leone and Lebanon. Secretary General Annan's moral leadership has also inspired the U.N.'s member states to remake a wholly dysfunctional U.N. Human Rights Commission by replacing it with a Human Rights Council that for the first time in the history of the United Nations will require countries to meet human rights qualifications to gain membership. This change will forever shatter the pernicious myth that had long operated in Geneva, that a pathological dictatorship like Sudan somehow occupied the same moral high ground as Sweden in enforcing agreed human rights standards. The Secretary General has also created a new architecture to attack poverty and chronic disease by committing states to tangible Millennium Development Goals, and by creating a Global Compact committing corporations to pledges to upgrade environmental, labor and human rights conditions. This will serve to bring the benefits of globalization to more people worldwide. Mr. Speaker, it was my honor to be the first person to nominate Kofi Annan for the Nobel Peace Prize. When the distinguished Secretary General accepted that prize in October 2001, he explained why he is so committed to ensuring that the United Nations can live up to its responsibility to protect each and every vulnerable human being. As he most eloquently phrased it on the stage in Stockholm, ``What begins with the failure to uphold the dignity of one life, all too often ends with a calamity for entire nations.'' And ``a genocide begins with the killing of one man--not for what he has done, but because of who he is.'' Mr. Speaker, it is hard to overstate the contribution that United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has made to advancing human dignity, peace and stability in the world. I invite my colleagues to join me in saluting Kofi Annan, the finest Secretary General ever to have served at the helm of the United Nations.

Mr. LANTOS

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

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House introduced by my distinguished California colleague and good friend, Congresswoman Hilda Solis, shines the spotlight on the murders of impoverished young women in Mexico. I applaud my friend and colleague, Chairman Hyde, for recognizing the importance of this resolution and facilitating its consideration both by our committee and the full House. Mr. Speaker, since 1993, over 400 gruesome killings have plagued Mexico's nearly lawless northern border. In the last 2 years alone, over 56 women in this region have had their lives brutally extinguished. Although these statistics are shocking at face value, the numbers often hide due to time and distance the very human stories that bleed from the pages of crime reports. In the Ciudad Juarez murders, the tragic tales are about girls and young women in the prime of their lives who, as they are walking home from one of the many sweatshops along the border, are kidnapped, raped, and brutally murdered. Their bodies are then unceremoniously dumped at the fringes of town. Families are left wondering what happened to their daughters or sisters or mothers. As a result of the combined efforts of honorable individuals like my good friends and colleagues, Congresswoman Solis and Congressman Reyes, as well as organizations such as the Washington Office on Latin America and the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the Mexican government of President Fox finally took action. Among President Fox's initiatives were the establishment of a commission to coordinate federal and state efforts in Mexico, the appointment of a special prosecutor to review and bring related cases, and a plan to prevent future crimes. It is not yet clear, Mr. Speaker, that these efforts have slowed the pace by which girls and women are being murdered in Ciudad Juarez or in Chihuahua City. Credible reports indicate that at least as many murders have been committed each year since the Mexican federal and state authorities began implementing their new policies. It is also not apparent that local authorities are seriously committed to investigating and bringing to justice the criminals who are behind the murders. Suspects have been arrested for only about half of the Ciudad Juarez murders. In a significant number of cases, the defendants claimed that they were tortured into confessing their guilt. Real, impartial, professional investigations and prosecutions are needed to take the killers off the streets and to bring closure to the victims' families. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today takes steps to address these remaining problems. It encourages the administration to include the Ciudad Juarez murders as part of the bilateral agenda between our government and the government of Mexico. It supports ongoing efforts to identify unknown victims through forensic analysis, including DNA testing, and it urges the Mexican authorities to invest in a new sense of urgency and professionalism as part of their continuing work. These killings, Mr. Speaker, must stop. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my friend, Congressman Engel of New York, the ranking member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.

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