Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in just a few days, we will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the victorious end of World War II in Europe, and the President will mark this important historic anniversary by visiting Holland and Russia for special commemorative events. It is very appropriate, Madam Speaker, that in addition to recognizing that all- important date, we recognize the liberation of the Czech people who have gone through so much in their search for liberty. Our resolution calls attention to the role of American military forces in the liberation of Bohemia and the city of Pilsen in the very last days of the Second World War. Madam Speaker, 10 years ago, on the 50th anniversary of this event, it was my privilege to represent the United States in Bohemia commemorating this historic occasion, and I sensed firsthand the warm friendship and gratitude the people of the Czech Republic have for the United States and for our role in liberating them. The strong friendship and the good relations between the United States and the Czech Republic were profoundly strengthened by the liberation of western Bohemia in May of 1949 under the leadership of General Patton and the Third Army he led, which included not only American, but also free Belgian and Czech troops. Our resolution reaffirms the bonds of friendship between the American and the Czech people, which go back to the strong and enthusiastic support President Woodrow Wilson and the American people displayed for the establishment of Czechoslovakia at the end of the First World War. In the last decade and a half, those ties have been further strengthened as we have welcomed the end of the Communist era in Central Europe. Eight years ago, it was my pleasure to fly to Independence, Missouri with the Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic, as well as the Foreign Ministers of Poland and Hungary, to witness the signing of Czechoslovakia's ascension to the North Atlantic Alliance. The Czech people have faced domination by foreign rulers for centuries. The liberation of western Bohemia by the United States created the possibility of a new future for the Czech people, which they attempted to seize first in 1968 in the famous Prague spring which Soviet forces brutally suppressed, and then in 1989 when the Czech people prevailed. Our resolution honors not only their liberation, but their resilience and their commitment to free, open, and democratic societies. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution as we send our best greetings to the free people of a free Czech Republic. Madam Speaker, I reserve 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. I first would like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for introducing this timely and important resolution, which calls on the Nigerian Government to hand over former Liberian President Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Madam Speaker, the stability of West Africa and many innocent lives may be in jeopardy if Charles Taylor is allowed to avoid justice for the horrendous crimes he committed during the Sierra Leone civil war. There is no doubt that the Nigerian Government stepped in and helped end that civil war and brought peace to Liberia by offering Taylor exile. The terms of that exile stated, however, that he was not to interfere in the internal affairs of Liberia. According to the U.N. Secretary General, Charles Taylor is in regular contact with former military commanders, business associates, and members of his political party. Ominously, his departing statement when forced into exile, that he would return to Liberia, remains his goal. Madam Speaker, Charles Taylor is an international criminal of the worst order. He was singularly responsible for using conflict diamonds to fund armed terrorist groups to destabilize Sierra Leone. He financed the notorious Revolutionary United Front terrorists, who in turn recruited children and used them to terrorize their own communities. And he is responsible for innocent civilians having their limbs and other body parts chopped off. I am baffled by the reluctance of the Government of Nigeria to transfer this criminal Charles Taylor to the Special Court where he belongs. Not only is there strong evidence that he was a brutal dictator and a warmonger as president of Liberia; he has violated the very conditions his host government laid down for him to remain in their custody. I see absolutely no reason, Madam Speaker, why Nigeria should continue to offer Charles Taylor undeserved sanctuary so that he can once again pull together a criminal network to terrorize the people of West Africa. The relationship between the United States and Nigeria is strong, and Nigeria remains an important ally of ours in Africa. They should not jeopardize this relationship for the likes of Charles Taylor. I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 127. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, before yielding back my time, let me just observe that our cooperation across party lines on this issue is emblematic of the many, many problems and areas and countries where the House Committee on International Relations functions in a uniquely bipartisan fashion for the national interest. Madam Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

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

Mr. LANTOS

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

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of this resolution. At the outset, I would like to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for introducing this important resolution and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) for ably managing it on the floor. Madam Speaker, 30 years ago, the fall of South Vietnam caused a refugee crisis of enormous proportions. Three million Vietnamese fled their homeland, with more than 1.5 million ultimately arriving in the United States. While a few left from the top of the U.S. Embassy in helicopters in the hurried rush at the end of the war, millions were loaded with their families onto rickety, overcrowded boats to flee Vietnam for freedom. The resolution before us observes the 30th anniversary of this huge exodus of refugees from Vietnam and honors the significant contributions made by Vietnamese Americans after their arrival in the United States. Madam Speaker, we are a Nation of immigrants, and Vietnamese Americans have warmly embraced the values and ethics of previous immigrant generations: hard work, education, an emphasis on family, and a strong embrace of our democratic system. Many Vietnamese Americans arrived with little more than the clothes on their back and have made new, prosperous lives for themselves here in the United States. Vietnamese Americans have become astronauts, television anchors, NFL football players, attorneys general and software entrepreneurs. They have made significant contributions to our society and to our culture, and their positive influence on our Nation will continue to grow. Vietnamese Americans have also made the ultimate sacrifice for their newly adopted Nation. On March 22, 2004, Marine Lance Corporal Andrew Dang was killed by enemy fire while on patrol near Ramadi in Iraq. Andrew joined the Marines about a month after the start of the war in Iraq and was assigned to Camp Pendleton in my home State of California. After his death, a fellow Marine wrote about Andrew, and I quote, ``Everyone could count on him and no one questioned his loyalty. He believed in what the United States was doing against terror and so do we. None of us who knew Andrew will ever forget him.'' Madam Speaker, our condolences go out to Andrew's family as does our great appreciation for his willingness to serve our Nation. Vietnamese Americans are increasingly part of the fabric of American society, working hard, caring for their families, and giving back to their adopted homeland. Our resolution recognizes the evolution of the Vietnamese-American community and their lasting contributions to our entire Nation. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

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

Mr. LANTOS

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

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Let me first thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the International Relations Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for facilitating our body's consideration of the resolution so expeditiously. And let me thank my two friends on the other side, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), for their indefatigable fight for all human rights issues globally. I also want to thank my friend, the ranking Democratic member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), for his ongoing battle for human rights in Cuba. Mr. Speaker, it is inexcusable that 2 years after 75 Cuban lovers of freedom were tried in kangaroo courts in Havana, sentenced to prison terms ranging from 6 to 28 years for a total prison term of a thousand years and imprisoned in rat-infested dank cells, Castro's totalitarian machine is still trying to crack the backs of that Caribbean island's internal opposition by continuing to lock up some of its most distinguished civic and human rights leaders. These political prisoners, Mr. Speaker, are suffering unspeakable horrors at the hands of Cuban police agents simply because they dare to articulate their disagreement with Castro's Communist government; because they dared to share their personal book collections with their friends and neighbors; because they dared to advocate for labor unions; and because they refused to compromise their journalistic integrity. These soldiers of freedom, Mr. Speaker, who stand shoulder to shoulder in spirit with the likes of Poland's Lech Walesa and the Czech Republic's Vaclav Havel, were thrown behind bars because they practiced their professions or attempted to exert their political rights and civil liberties without the blessings of Castro's oppressive regime. Many of those arrested were supporters of the so-called Varela Project, a grassroots, nonviolent citizens' movement in Cuba that seeks fundamental political change on the island by petitioning the Cuban Government for a referendum on reform. Mr. Speaker, it is painfully clear that Castro still does not grasp what has become obvious to many leaders of isolated countries, that the ideological contest between democratic liberty and totalitarian suppression was won over a decade ago. There is no question today, as there was during World War II or throughout the long years of the Cold War, that systems and individuals who seek to repress and terrorize their people ultimately will not prevail. It is only a matter of time before the Communist government of Cuba will realize that the choice before it is not whether the cronies of Castro will be able to maintain power, for the answer to that question is a clear and resounding no; but rather whether they want to participate constructively in a process that will surely transition Cuba to a future of freedom, democracy, and economic opportunity for all. Mr. Speaker, recently, the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere convened a remarkable hearing at which members of the internal opposition spoke via telephone from Havana, despite placing themselves at risk of state persecution. These courageous political dissidents forcefully argued that we in Congress should call upon the international community to denounce Cuba's human rights record at every opportunity. Mr. Speaker, here in this House we may disagree on how best to bring about change in Cuba. But we stand together in steadfast solidarity with those who endure the depths of human depravity solely because they strive each day to loosen the shackles of communist repression for themselves and their fellow countrymen and women. I strongly urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 81, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to a courageous speech given on April 7 by my good friend, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, to Delegates attending this year's U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva. In this speech the Secretary-General outlined his plans to shut down the hopelessly discredited forum and replace it with a smaller Human Rights Council that is explicitly intended to exclude human rights violators like the Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Cuba. During the past few years, many of us in the House of Representatives have been outraged that the designated global forum for identifying and censuring the world's most egregious violators of basic human rights had become a haven for the world's worst tyrannies. Thus it is refreshing to see that Secretary-General Annan has recognized that its overhaul must be an integral piece of U.N. structural reform. In his speech to the Commission in Geneva last week, the Secretary-General called on the U.N. to do more to promote and protect fundamental rights and freedoms by stating that ``unless we re-make our human rights machinery, we may be unable to renew public confidence in the United Nations itself.'' He also asserted that ``At the same time, the Commission's ability to perform its tasks has been overtaken by new needs, and undermined by the politicization of its sessions and the selectivity of its work. We have reached a point at which the Commission's declining credibility has cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole, and where piecemeal reforms will not be enough.'' As Members of Congress, we have an opportunity to demonstrate U.S. leadership by helping the U.N. address today's most critical human rights challenges. I commend the Secretary-General's recommendations to create a more efficient and accountable human rights body and urge you to join me in supporting his efforts. In the coming weeks and months I will be working with my colleagues in the International Relations Committee, with the Secretary-General and with the Administration to ensure that the Secretary-General's bold plans to restructure the U.N.'s human rights mechanisms are implemented in a way that supports his goals. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the entire text of the Secretary-General's historic address be placed in the Record. The Secretary-General's Address to the Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, April 7, 2005 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like you I am deeply conscious of what we have all lost with the passing of Pope John Paul II. His was an irreplaceable voice speaking out for peace, for religious freedom, and for mutual respect and understanding between people of different faiths. Even as we mourn his loss, I hope all of us who are concerned with human rights can pledge ourselves to preserve those aspects of his legacy. Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, One year ago today, we stood together in this Commission in silent tribute to the memory of the victims of genocide in Rwanda. We recalled again our collective failure to protect hundreds of thousands of defenseless people. And we resolved to act more decisively to ensure that such a denial of our common humanity is never allowed to happen again. Today we have reached another moment when we must prove our commitment. First, because of the appalling suffering in Darfur. Valiant efforts have been made to deliver humanitarian assistance. I am glad the Security Council has now agreed, both to impose sanctions on individuals who commit violations of international humanitarian or human rights law, and to ask the International Criminal Court to play its essential role in lifting the veil of impunity and holding to account those accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. And I think we should all be grateful to the troops deployed by the African Union, whose presence--wherever it is felt--is definitely helping to protect the population from further crimes. But in its present form that force is clearly not sufficient to provide security throughout such a vast territory. And meanwhile, there has been hardly any progress towards a political settlement. For all of us, as individuals and as an institution, this situation is a test. For thousands of men, women and children, our response is already too late. But today I am also thinking of victims whose plight is not so well known. I have in mind the weak, the poor and the vulnerable. I am thinking of all people who are denied their human rights, or who may yet fall prey to violence and oppression. To all, our responsibility under the Charter is clear: we must do more to promote and protect fundamental rights and freedoms, whenever and wherever they occur. Indeed, nobody has a monopoly on human rights virtue. Abuses are found in rich countries as well as poor. Women in a wide range of countries continue to enjoy less than their full rights. Whether committed in the name of religion, ethnicity or state security, violations have a claim on our conscience. Whether carried out in public or in more insidious ways, breaches must compel us to stand up for the right of all human beings to be treated with dignity and respect. Human rights are at the core of the package of proposals I have just put before the Member States in my report, ``In Larger Freedom.'' I argue that we will not enjoy development without security, or security without development. But I also stress that we will not enjoy either without universal respect for human rights. Unless all these causes are advanced, none will succeed. And unless we re-make our human rights machinery, we may be unable to renew public confidence in the United Nations itself. The cause of human rights has entered a new era. For much of the past 60 years, our focus has been on articulating, codifying and enshrining rights. That effort produced a remarkable framework of laws, standards and mechanisms--the Universal Declaration, the international covenants, and much else. Such work needs to continue in some areas. But the era of declaration is now giving way, as it should, to an era of implementation. The recommendations I have put forward reflect this evolution. Most of all, they attempt to build a United Nations that can fulfill the promise of the Charter. Thus I have proposed major changes in the three central pillars of the United Nations human rights system: the treaty bodies, the Office of the High Commissioner and the inter- governmental machinery. Let me take them each in turn. The seven treaty bodies are the independent guardians of the rights and protections that have been negotiated and accepted over the years. Their dialogue with States emphasizes accountability, and their recommendations provide clear guidance on the steps needed for full compliance. The treaty body system has helped to create national constituencies for the implementation of human rights. But the system must be streamlined and strengthened, so that the treaty bodies can better carry out their mandates. And urgent measures must be taken to enable them to function as a strong, unified system. I have also called on the membership to strengthen the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The role of the Office has expanded greatly. In addition to its long- standing advocacy work, today it is also engaged in conflict prevention and crisis response. And where once much of its energies were devoted to servicing the human rights bodies, today it also offers wide-ranging technical assistance. Yet the Office remains ill-equipped in some key respects. It cannot, for example, carry out proper early warning, even though human rights violations are often the first indicators of instability. The High Commissioner and her staff continue to work admirably within real constraints. They would be the first to acknowledge shortcomings, and they are best placed to identify ways to overcome them. Accordingly, I have asked the High Commissioner to submit a plan of action by 20 May. I expect a request for additional resources to figure prominently in her recommendations. As central as human rights are in our work, the United Nations allocates just two percent of its regular budget to that programme. We need to scale up to meet the growing challenges that confront us. I turn now to the most dramatic of my proposals. As you know, I have recommended that Member States replace the Commission on Human Rights with a smaller Human Rights Council. The Commission in its current form has some notable strengths. It can take action on country situations. It can appoint rapporteurs and other experts. And it works closely with civil society groups. At the same time, the Commission's ability to perform its tasks has been overtaken by new needs, and undermined by the politicization of its sessions and the selectivity of its work. We have reached a point at which the Commission's declining credibility has cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole, and where piecemeal reforms will not be enough. A Human Rights Council would offer a fresh start. My basic premise is that the main intergovernmental body concerned with human rights should have a status, authority and capability commensurate with the importance of its work. The United Nations already has councils that deal with its two other main purposes, security and development. So creating a full-fledged council for human rights offers conceptual and architectural clarity. But what is most important is for the new body to be able to carry out the tasks required of it. I have proposed that the Council be a standing body, able to meet when necessary rather than for only six weeks each year as at present. It should have an explicitly defined function as a chamber of peer review. Its main task would be to evaluate the fulfillment by all states of all their human rights obligations. This would give concrete expression to the principle that human rights are universal and indivisible. Equal attention will have to be given to civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the right to development. And it should be equipped to give technical assistance to States, and policy advice to states and UN bodies alike. Under such a system, every Member State could come up for review on a periodic basis. Any such rotation should not, however, impede the Council from dealing with massive and gross violations that might occur. Indeed, the Council will have to be able to bring urgent crises to the attention of the world community. The new Human Rights Council must be a society of the committed. It must be more accountable and more representative. That is why I have suggested that members be elected by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly, and that those elected should have a solid record of commitment to the highest human rights standards. Being elected by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly should help make members more accountable, and the body as a whole more representative. A Council will not overcome all the tensions that accompany our handling of human rights. A degree of tension is inherent in the issues. But the Council would allow for a more comprehensive and objective approach. And ultimately it would produce more effective assistance and protections, and that is the yardstick by which we should be measured. I urge Member States to reach early agreement in principle to establish a Human Rights Council. They can then turn to the details such as its size, composition and mandate; its relationship with other UN bodies; and how to retain the best of the existing mechanisms, such as the special rapporteurs and the close ties with NGOs. Consultations with the High Commissioner would naturally be a very central part of this process, and she stands ready to assist. Let us all do our part to make this happen, and show that the United Nations takes the cause of human rights as seriously as it does those of security and development. Ladies and Gentlemen, Human rights are the core of the United Nations' identity. Men and women everywhere expect us to uphold universal ideals. They need us to be their ally and protector. They want to believe we can help unmask bigotry and defend the rights of the weak and voiceless. For too long now, we have indulged this view of our own capabilities. But the gap between what we seem to promise, and what we actually deliver, has grown. The answer is not to draw back from an ambitious human rights agenda, but to make the improvements that will enable our machinery to live up to the world's expectations. Our constituents will not understand or accept any excuse if we fail to act. So let us show them that we understand what is at stake. Thank you very much.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, April 14, 2005, through an inadvertent error during voting on S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, I was recorded as not voting. I ask unanimous consent that the permanent record indicates that on rollcall vote No. 108 I would have been recorded as having voted in the negative.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. William Schwartz as the co-founder of the Samaritan House Free Medical Clinic, as well as his dedication to the clinic since its inception in 1992. Dr. Schwartz was awarded the Jefferson Award for his work at the clinic that is located in San Mateo, California, in my district. His friends and colleagues have praised him for his selfless acts and hard work in trying to make our community a better place, and I hope the acknowledgment that comes from this award will inspire others to devote more of their time to helping those in need. Thirteen years ago, Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Walter Gains started a free clinic for those who could not afford health care. They treated patients in the conference room at Samaritan House one or two nights a week after spending the day at their own offices. The clinic provided free care through the generous contributions of lab work and x-rays by Mills Peninsula Hospital. Now open 6 days a week in two separate locations in San Mateo and Redwood City, the clinic serves 8,000 patients a year through donations that range from $25 and $50. Mr. Speaker, small contributions and volunteers have kept this free clinic thriving. Ninety percent of the staff members donate their time after they leave their own jobs or after retirement. Dr. Schwartz worked as an internist in San Mateo for the 32 years in private practice and was preparing to retire when he got the idea to start the clinic. Now most of the doctors, nurses and translators running the clinic are retired. They include specialists in dentistry, gynecology, oncology, optometry, psychology, and orthopedics. Dr. Schwartz has seen many free clinics disappear over time with people turning to more mainstream medical facilities, yet the number of needy people has risen. Most of the patients have extremely low incomes of less than thirty percent of median income. The Jefferson Award is bestowed by the American Institute of Public Service for making a difference in one's community. Dr. Schwartz has done just that. His clinic even has been able to relieve some of the stress on overcrowded emergency rooms that many poor people have come to rely on for many non-emergency situations. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in thanking Dr. William Schwartz for his contributions to my community. He has devoted his time to making a difference, beginning as a clinical professor at the University of California at San Francisco and now giving to the people of San Mateo and Redwood City medical attention. I rise today to congratulate him on winning the ``Nobel Prize of Community Service.'' He and his wife, Florette, deserve a long vacation and the nation's thanks.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of this resolution. Madam Speaker, at the outset, I would like to express my deep appreciation to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for authoring this resolution remembering the life of Pope John Paul II. I also welcome the wholehearted support for this measure of my friend, our Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). Madam Speaker, one billion Catholics worldwide, more than 60 million of them Americans, have suffered the staggering loss of a unique spiritual leader. And for all humanity, Pope John Paul II was a towering figure in the struggle for freedom. He railed against injustice all his life. He fought tirelessly on behalf of the poor, and he kept alive the aspirations of the oppressed wherever they were. Those of us who have shared in his fight against both Nazism and communism have a special appreciation for him. Those of us who lived in the grip of Nazism and communism will always be grateful for his eloquence and his courage in his fight against Hitler's tyranny and Soviet domination during the Cold War. I had the profound honor, with my wife, of having a serious conversation with Pope John Paul II during the visit to Rome in 1998. In our long discussion with His Holiness, we were struck by his clarity of mind, his captivating personality, and his absolute refusal to let his deteriorating health force him to remain behind the walls of Vatican City. These impressions came back to me during these very last days when a Pope silenced by illness nevertheless continued to call out forcefully for freedom and peace and to bring comfort to millions around the globe. In his first public address at his installation as the Supreme Pontiff in 1978, John Paul II famously urged the faithful, and I quote, ``Be not afraid.'' In the decades that followed, this message resonated well beyond the Church and the City of Rome. Within months of assuming his papacy, Pope John Paul II traveled to his native Poland. Enormous crowds poured onto the streets to greet him. The Pope pointed out that it was impossible to understand Poland without the context of Catholicism, and that, in his words, ``There can be no just Europe without the independence of Poland.'' Throughout the 1980s, the Pope remained in constant contact with the nascent Solidarity labor movement and with the Polish Government, pushing successfully for the end of martial law in 1983, and, ultimately, Madam Speaker, the end of the Polish Communist regime in 1989. The demise of communism in Poland dramatically influenced the pace of Democratic change throughout Central and Eastern Europe. Americans, together with the rest of the world, will be eternally grateful for his important role in bringing liberty and democracy to tens of millions of men and women behind the Iron Curtain. The Pontiff went on to provide inspiration for the ``people power'' revolt against the corrupt rule of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, and he strongly supported the pro-democracy efforts of the Archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Jaime Sin. Marcos fell from power in 1986. Then the Pope traveled to Chile in 1987 and spoke out firmly against the authoritarian rule of Augusto Pinochet. Democracy took hold in Chile in 1990. Then the Pope traveled to East Timor in 1999, inspiring a whole generation of young Timorese to protest Indonesian occupation. East Timor won its freedom in 2002. Pope John Paul II also made extraordinary efforts to repair relations between Catholics and Jews. In 1982, he took the historic step of establishing diplomatic relations between the Vatican and the State of Israel. He became the first Pope in modern times to visit a synagogue. In 2000, he was the first Pope to travel to the State of Israel; and there, Madam Speaker, he quietly read a prayer of reconciliation at the Western Wall, requesting forgiveness for the sins of the Church against Jews through the centuries. At a somber visit to the Yad Vashem, the memorial to the Holocaust, the Pope spoke movingly of his Jewish friends he had lost to the death camps during the Holocaust, and he recommitted the Catholic Church to battling anti-Semitism around the globe. He said, ``The world must heed the warning that comes to all of us from the victims of the Holocaust, and from the testimony of the survivors.'' Madam Speaker, with his efforts to reach out to Jews worldwide and to the State of Israel, and with his ceaseless work to promote human rights globally, Pope John Paul II, became a truly historic figure. We were all inspired by his passion for justice. His voice will be missed in the great global chorus that sings out for freedom in all corners of the world. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in concluding on our side, may I just say that for the last hour you have heard an outpouring of genuine affection and respect and admiration for a great spiritual leader. These were not empty phrases. These were heartfelt thoughts and expressions of profound respect for a person who in a profound way has changed our world for the better. In concluding, I again want to thank my friend for crafting this brilliant and moving resolution on which we are about to vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our Democratic leader and my friend and neighbor who will be one of the leaders of the congressional delegation leaving for Rome.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I introduced the United States-Libya Relations Act of 2005. I am proud to have authored this bill, which I believe will fortify a historic change in Libyan policies and will strengthen relations between the United States and Libya. In December 2003, Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi made a path breaking decision. He decided to dismantle Libya's weapons of mass destruction and turn them over to his longtime nemesis, the United States, and to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). With that decision, Col. Qadhafi fundamentally changed the regional security situation, his nation's diplomatic standing, and the economic outlook for the Libyan people. And, most important, he established a model for other rogue nations around the world to follow. While the Libya breakthrough is significant in its own right, it has much broader implications. If the United States can convince other nations to follow Libya's example, we can fundamentally improve our own national security, strengthen international security and improve the daily lives of millions. Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the Administration take full strategic advantage of this historic opportunity. When Libya announced that it was renouncing WMD, President Bush said, ``Leaders who abandon the pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them, will find an open path to better relations with the United States and other free nations.'' Now we need to do a better job of implementing the President's pledge. We need to promote the ``Libya model'' as an example for U.S. relations with proliferator states such as North Korea and Iran. Proliferators must understand that a definitive end to their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction will bring a new era of positive relations with the United States. And the whole world must see that the United States keeps its word to improve relations and work with those states who abandon their illegal weapons programs. It is my sincere belief that other nations can be encouraged to follow the Libya example, but we must be certain that Libya's experience is positive and that its dramatic reversal in policy is rewarded. While we have taken some actions that respond positively to Libya's gesture, but we have not done as much as is warranted by the magnitude and historic nature of this opportunity. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the ``United States-Libya Relations Act of 2005.'' This legislation is intended to: reinforce U.S. and Libyan commitments to one another; strengthen bilateral relations; facilitate the integration of Libya into the international community; and encourage positive change in Libyan society. This bill fully implements the President's promise that countries that relinquish weapons of mass destruction will find an ``open path'' to better relations with the United States. The legislation foresees a variety of benefits for Libya--support for U.S. investment and trade with Libya, increased educational exchanges and other forms of people- to-people contacts, and an end to the political and economic isolation of Libya. This legislation puts the U.S. Congress squarely on record as supporting the President's policy, affirming that Libya's decision to abandon weapons of mass destruction ``marks an unprecedented step'' that ``suggests a model approach for other countries'' that abandon their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. There are two types of regime change. A regime can be changed by others through the use of force. On the other hand, a regime can change its policies without changing its leadership. Rogue states need to know that both options are on the table. I want this bill to serve as a beacon for rogue nations that want to come in from the cold--that want to end their isolation and impoverishment, as Colonel Qadhafi did. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that this bill may raise questions in two-- regards terrorism and human rights. First, as we all know, Libya remains on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. But it is my understanding, based on conversations with numerous U.S. government officials and a statement made yesterday by Undersecretary of State William Burns before the International Relations Committee, that since at least December 2003 Libya has not supported international terrorist groups, and, in fact, that it has been very helpful to us in fighting the global war on terrorism. Let me make clear that my bill does not call on the Administration to remove Libya from the terrorism list before it is warranted by the facts and ongoing discussions between our government and officials of the Libyan government. Second, as my colleagues in the Congress know, I have a lifelong commitment to human rights, and my legislation emphasizes the importance of supporting human rights and democratic values in Libya both through dialogue and through deed. This legislation is unwavering in its commitment to American values of human rights and democracy, but, in the interest of promoting the Libyan model and enhancing international security, we should not put bilateral relations on ice until respect for human rights and democracy have been fully achieved. Mr. Speaker, it is right and appropriate for the United States to offer proliferators an opportunity to change their policies and benefit from doing what is in their and our best interest. Now we must make sure we follow through on President Bush's pledge that countries which relinquish weapons of mass destruction will find an ``open path'' to better relations with the United States. That is the spirit that motivated his response to Libyan renunciation of weapons of mass destruction in December 2003, and that is exactly the spirit that motivates the US-Libya Relations Act which I am introducing today.