Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, nearly six years ago 427 Libyan children were reported infected with the human immunodeficiency virus HIV in the al-Fatih Hospital in Benghazi, and more than 10 percent of these children have subsequently died. This is a tragedy of immense proportions. Of course, this situation is best known in the context of the outrageous case that was brought against five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor, who were falsely accused of infecting these children. These six individuals have now been convicted and sentenced to death, and on many occasions I and others of our colleagues have spoken out against this verdict and urged Libyan leaders to overturn this miscarriage of justice. On this occasion, however, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deepest condolences to the Libyan families whose children have died from AIDS as a result of being inadvertently infected by HIV. I would also like to offer my deep and heart-felt sympathy to the families of those children who continue to suffer from HIV/AIDS. The most expert, objective investigation suggests that the cause of this human tragedy was sloppy hospital procedure, but my purpose here is not to assign blame but to shed tears. Mr. Speaker, we must be able to separate our deep unhappiness about the verdict against the five nurses and one doctor from our deep sadness over the horrendous tragedy that befell these Libyan children. The lives of these children and their families have been changed irrevocably by this tragedy. Not the least aspect of this horror is the resulting social ostracism incurred in a highly traditional society. For example, many of these children have been forced to drop out of school because of local ignorance about the HIV virus. In this regard, I want to commend the U.S. Liaison Office, USLO, in Tripoli and Chief of Mission Greg Berry for giving thoughtful attention to this issue. For example, USLO has brought leading AIDS authorities to Benghazi from the United States to advise the Libyans on AIDS treatment and related issues. We must remain committed to helping win the freedom of the five nurses and one doctor who have been unfairly charged and punished for a crime they did not commit. But at the same time we must keep in mind and in our hearts the children and their families who have unfairly suffered this tragic fate which they did not deserve. I support the efforts of the USLO in Tripoli to ameliorate their pain and heal them, and I intend to work with the Administration to explore means to redouble those efforts in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on International Relations who has been our leader on all matters relating to that important continent.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of this bill. First, I would like to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), for keeping this House focused on the grave atrocities in Darfur. Mr. Speaker, we are facing an ongoing genocide in Darfur. This House has said it; following our example the Senate has said it; the administration has come to the same conclusion; and the United Nations agrees: genocide is taking place in Darfur. What is keeping the international community from intervening in the Darfur crisis? I hesitate to ask because I hate to think that the answer is the same double standard that stayed our hand in Rwanda in the 1990s. Mr. Speaker, each of us has recounted the numbers in connection with the crisis in Darfur: an estimated 300,000 dead because of murder, starvation and disease, and 2 million refugees forced to flee their homes, most of whom are internally displaced, while others are forced out of the country. The humanitarian needs in Darfur are staggering. After a year of international pressure, there are now about 60 international humanitarian organizations registered to operate in Darfur, and I strongly support more such aid to ease the suffering. But while these NGOs set up their operations to reach some of those in need, thousands are still without any relief due to the ongoing conflict. The Sudanese military forces and its armed Arab militia, who I remind my colleagues are behind this tragedy in the first place, continue to commit some of the most heinous human rights abuses imaginable, and the number of those affected by this conflict continues to grow every day. Mr. Speaker, recently the African Union has stepped forward with monitors and 3,500 troops to end the persecution in Darfur, and Sudan has agreed to an increase in African Union deployment. But now it is being reported that Khartoum has repeatedly refused to give fuel to the African Union monitors while the government's attack helicopters are in the air assaulting civilians on the ground. While the African Union is committed to fulfilling its obligation to monitor and to report on human rights violations, it is hampered by all sides to the conflict not wishing to be implicated in the abuse. According to reports, the morale among African Union troops is very low because they are blocked at every turn by the ongoing violence and their inability to intervene. In response to calls for international civilian protection forces, Khartoum's leaders have threatened to open, and I quote, ``the five gates of hell,'' against such protection. And in a cynical attempt to pretend it is taking action to protect civilians, Khartoum has recycled Arab militia killers into the Sudanese police force and has assigned them to guard camps for the displaced. I am a strong supporter of African solutions for Africa's problems, and the deployment of African Union monitors and the protection force in Darfur is an opening sign that in the face of genocide, civilian protection should trump national sovereignty. But I am very much concerned that the African Union does not have the experience, the manpower, or the resources needed to provide civilian protection to end the genocide in Darfur. Their numbers are small compared to the task, and their resources are minimal. Mr. Speaker, it troubles me that in the face of genocide we do not take the best asset we have available, NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, long experienced in civilian protection, to deploy its forces in Darfur in support of the African Union mission. In the face of genocide, I think it is imperative that our NATO ambassador move at the North Atlantic Council demanding that NATO get involved in Darfur to protect civilians from genocide. While I recognize this is a tall order, when we were confronted with the crisis in Kosovo, NATO acted. We should expect nothing less for the African victims of genocide in Darfur. If we in the international community have the determination to end this genocide, that is what we must do. Otherwise, we have cause to wonder what exactly we harbor in our hearts toward the people of Darfur. In closing, I urge all of my colleagues to support S. 2781. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my good friend, a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations and a tireless fighter for human rights.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the death of World War II hero, Aristides de Sousa Mendes. Mr. Sousa Mendes, the defamed Consul General of Portugal to Bordeaux, France, spared more than 30,000 lives from the perils of Hitler's Nazi regime. In May of 1940, the Nazis broke through French defense's in Sedan and Hitler's blitzkrieg exploded over the French borders. In a matter of days, a deluge of refugees from Paris, Warsaw, Berlin and Riga headed towards Southern France hoping to flee to neutral Portugal or Spain via Bordeaux. Using pushcarts, trucks, wagons and any other ramshackle mode of transportation, thousands of Jewish refugees and others of ``ill-defined nationality,'' according to the Nazis, stormed the city of Bordeaux in hopes of obtaining the transit visa needed to exit France. Homeless and laden with their salvaged belongings, men, women and children slept in the streets and on the park benches of Bordeaux. The Jewish refugees sought out the Bordeaux synagogue in seek of shelter and care. Kindled by Nazi propaganda, rampant anti-Semitism plagued Bordeaux as the flood of Jewish refugees spread through the streets. The situation for the thousands of refugees became more desperate day by day. The wealthier refugees managed to book sea passage and left Europe for safer shores. The remaining helpless masses became increasingly despairing as Spanish General Franco, indebted to Hitler, was determined not to allow refugees to infiltrate the Spanish borders. Unless refugees held a Portuguese issued transit visa on their person, they were unable to flee to Portugal via Spain. In November of 1939, Portuguese Premier Antonio de Oliveira Salazar issued a directive, which forbade his diplomats in Europe from granting transit visas to categories of people without explicit permission from Lisbon. Included in these categories were ``Jews expelled from the countries of their nationality or those from whence they issue", ``stateless persons,'' and ``all those who cannot safely return to the countries from whence they came.'' Subsequently, on May 17, 1940, days after the Nazis invaded France; Salazar declared that under no circumstances was any visa to be granted unless previously authorized by Lisbon, and only on a case-by-case basis. Serving as the Portuguese Consul-General, Aristides de Sousa Mendes witnessed the clamoring throngs of refugees at the gates of the Portuguese Consulate in Bordeaux. Disregarding the Premier, Sousa Mendes declared, ``I will grant a visa to whoever needs it, whether they can afford it or not. I will act in accordance to what my Christian conscience tells me.'' Indiscriminately, Sousa Mendes distributed transit visas in Bordeaux, Bayonne and Hendaye near the Franco-Spanish border. Sousa Mendes issued 30,000 transit visas and opened up a refugee escape route assumed to have saved the lives of over one million World War II refugees. Ten thousand of these refugees were Jews certain to have perished at the hands of the Nazis in extermination camps. The other 20,000 visas appeared in the passports of artists, writers, intellectuals, journalists, priests, nuns and others whose beliefs did not embody those of the fascist regime of Hitler's Nazi empire. Sousa Mendes became known as the ``Angel of Bordeaux.'' He and his beloved wife Angelina welcomed refugees into their own home. The halls, chambers and grounds of the Portuguese Consulate were filled with hungry, exhausted and terrorized individuals awaiting visas that promised them life. By June 17, 1940, an arbitrary system of gathering stacks and stacks of passports, stamping them with the coveted visas, and redistributing the documents without fee, record or count became Sousa Mendes' unceasing mission. As conditions worsened in France, more and more refugees fled to the South of France in hopes of fleeing to Portugal. On June 19, 1940, Sousa Mendes left his family in Bordeaux to assist more refugees in the Franco-Spanish border city of Bayonne. Overtaking the Consul General in Bayonne, he began to distribute exit visas to the thousands lined up all around the Consulate. In Bayonne, a telegram was sent to Lisbon from the actual Bayonne Consul General, Mr. Machado, informing Salazar of Sousa Mendes' activities. Two telegrams were sent to Sousa Mendes. One telegram demanded that Sousa Mendes cease his visa production and the second informed Sousa Mendes of his dismissal. Neither telegram was received, as Sousa Mendes had already moved to the border city Hendaye, to continue distribution. However, on June 24, 1940, he returned to Bordeaux and received the telegram with orders to leave France. Sousa Mendes disregarded the notice and thought of a method to keep the trapped refugees out of concentration camps: he began to issue Portuguese passports. Again he was rebuked by Lisbon and ordered to depart from France. Due to the group of prestigious individuals Sousa-Mendes saved, including Otto Habsburg, members of the Rothschilds family and members of the Belgian cabinet, Premier Salazar initially acknowledged the good press resulting from Sousa-Mendes' disobedience. Regardless, shortly thereafter, Salazar shunned Sousa Mendes, rendering this hero a disgraced, persona non grata. Closely monitored by Portuguese authorities, Sousa Mendes and his family were condemned to humiliation, destitution and infamy. Merely weeks before the end of the war, Sousa Mendes suffered a stroke and was left paralyzed. Eight years later his wife, Angelina, who served with Sousa Mendes tirelessly throughout the insanity of their days in Bordeaux issuing exit visas and passports, suffered a cerebral hemorrhage in 1948 and perished six months later. On April 3, 1954, Aristides de Sousa Mendes died at the Franciscan Hospital of the Tertiary Order in Lisbon. The Portuguese government never pardoned him while he still lived. Finally, in 1987, President Mario Soares granted Sousa Mendes the Portuguese Order of Freedom and publicly apologized to his surviving family for the injustices their family endured. Mr. Speaker, as you know my wife Annette and I were saved from death by Raoul Wallenberg. Aristides de Sousa Mendes action's were equally valiant, as Ben Macintyre said, ``Like Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who saved thousands of Hungarian Jews from Auschwitz in 1944 and 1945 by issuing them with diplomatic documents, de Sousa Mendes risked his life and destroyed his career by following his conscience.'' Despite Sousa Mendes' noble sacrifice, the public at large is not aware of the courage and bravery of this man. However, one organization that does honor this man's life, and recognizes the importance of acknowledging the power of one to make a difference, is the International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation. In recognition of those who strive to emulate the courageous and selfless acts of Wallenberg and de Sousa Mendes, the International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation minted a commemorative Aristides de Sousa Mendes medal. This Medal is presented yearly to individuals from all walks of life whose lives exhibit an unwavering commitment to humanitarian values, and a willingness to risk one's own life for fellow human beings, as Wallenberg and Sousa Mendes did in World War II. This year marks the 50th anniversary of this great humanitarian's death. It is imperative to me and my wife, that this unsung hero's legacy is recognized and celebrated. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Aristides de Sousa Mendes.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on October 26th, the Holocaust Memorial Museum will honor former Turkish diplomat Selahattin Ulkumen. Few honors anywhere have been more deserved. In 1944, Mr. Selahattin was a young diplomat who stared down German military authorities on the occupied island of Rhodes, convincing them to rescind the deportation orders of 50 Jews and their families and saving them from certain death. He paid a painful price for his courage. Today Rhodes is part of Greece, but it was part of the Ottoman Empire from 1522 to 1912 and under Italian control from 1912 through most of World War II. There were 1,700 Jews on the island when Germany took over Rhodes in 1943, after the death of Mussolini hastened the disintegration of Italian rule. On July 19, 1944, the Gestapo ordered all Jews on Rhodes to report for ``temporary transportation to a small island nearby.'' Everybody knew what that meant. They were to be transported--and not temporarily--to Auschwitz. When the Jews were rounded up, Consul-General Ulkumen went immediately to the detention center and demanded the release of the Jews who were Turkish citizens, as well as their spouses and families. The German commander refused at first, but Ulkumen persisted, claiming that deportation of Turkish citizens would violate German-Turkish treaties and boldly asserting that neutral and neighboring Turkey would raise the matter to the level of an ``international incident'' if Turkish citizens were deported. In the eyes of Turkish law, he said, all citizens are equal. The German commander finally relented, but insisted that only Jews with citizenship papers--a total of 13--would be released, not their spouses and families. Ulkumen, however, would not give ground. According to Turkish law, he said indignantly, the spouses and families of Turkish citizens ARE Turkish citizens. He was lying through his teeth. There was no such Turkish law. But the German commander fell for it, and, after a few days, agreed to release the spouses and families. In at least one instance, the husband of a Jewish Turkish citizen actually was taken off a train already bound from the Greek port of Piraeus to Auschwitz after Ulkumen won his point. -Ulkumen also managed to win the release of some 25-30 Jews who were former Turkish citizens but had allowed their citizenship to lapse. In all, according to the website of Israel's Yad Vashem Memorial Museum, Ulkumen managed to win the freedom and save the lives of some 50 Rhodes Jews. He was their only line of defense against the final solution. The remainder of Rhodes Jews all were deported to Auschwitz, where 90% of them perished. The story doesn't end there. Shortly after the release of the Turkish Jews and their families, the Germans--perhaps having discovered that Consul-General Ulkumen had tricked them regarding Turkish law-- took their revenge. They bombed the Turkish Consulate on Rhodes. Consul-General Ulkumen escaped harm, but his pregnant wife did not. She was seriously wounded--mortally, it turned out a few weeks later. But, before she died, she managed to give birth. Ulkumen himself died last year at the age of 89, but the product of that pregnancy, a son--now a 60-year-old man--will accept the Holocaust Museum's award on his late father's behalf. Ulkumen went on to hold many distinguished positions in the Turkish foreign service before retiring in the 1970s. Yad Vashem paid tribute to his courage in 1990 by naming him one of the ``Righteous Among the Nations'' and planting a tree in his honor. He was the first Muslim ever to receive this honor. In 2001, his own nation bestowed its highest award on Ulkumen--the Supreme Service Medal--for his Holocaust- era heroism on behalf of Jews. In both Judaism and Islam, it is said that saving one life is like saving the world. Thanks to Mr. Ulkumen, several family trees flourish today that otherwise would have been eliminated forever. He put his life--and that of his family--at risk rather than compromise his belief in equality and his commitment to the sanctity of human life. Unfortunately for Europe's Jews, bravery of his sort was all-too-rare. I commend the Holocaust Museum for venerating the memory of Selahattin Ulkumen and his deeds and for bestowing this honor on this profoundly honorable man.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, a distinguished, nationally-distributed newspaper based in San Francisco is celebrating its 25th anniversary. Today I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in saluting a quarter-century of achievement by this important information resource, AsianWeek. Founded in 1979 by John T.C. Fang, who came to the United States from China in the early 1950s, AsianWeek now boasts a confirmed readership of 175,000 people in its print form and countless others on- line. It is the only English language, national newsweekly chronicling the Asian Pacific American experience in all its variety. AsianWeek also offers an opportunity for Americans as a whole to learn about issues of particular importance to one of the country's fastest-growing communities, including civil rights, immigration, employment, and international affairs. John Fang launched the paper to help his fellow new Americans better themselves, and his legacy has passed to his family: Now published by his son James and edited his son Ted, and with the guidance of their mother, Chairwoman Florence Fang, AsianWeek reaches a broad cross- section of Americans, from recent arrivals in the immigrant community to leaders of national stature in business, politics, academia and culture. Its mission is to tell the story of Asian Pacific American life, to provide a forum in matters of importance to its readership, and to involve Asian Pacific Americans meaningfully in the nation's political process. To this end, the paper recently scored an important exclusive among the Asian American press: an interview with presidential nominee John Kerry, who discussed a range of subjects with editor-in-chief Samson Wong, from a proposed federal program combating hate crimes to the new vistas that have opened for his niece, a toddler adopted in China. But perhaps more important than any single story, AsianWeek aspires with every edition to deliver consistent, high-quality information on all manner of subjects of interest to its target readership. For these efforts, it has won several awards--both for overall coverage and individual citations from New California Media, a national association of more than 700 ethnic media organizations. The paper also provides place where disparate views on those subjects can be freely expressed. Dedicated to promoting discussion among people whose backgrounds include the many ethnic groups of South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific, AsianWeek describes itself as ``The Voice of Asian America.'' Mr. Speaker, may the Asian Pacific American community, and U.S. society as a whole, continue to benefit from the availability of this eloquent and extraordinary voice.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, in 1914 the South San Francisco Women's Club was founded to promote the educational, civic, and social well-being of the community. Today, on the occasion of the clubs 90th Anniversary, I am delighted to report that the South San Francisco Women's Club continues to deliver for the South City community. Since its inception, the South San Francisco Women's Club has remained committed to its core goals. Their commitment to beautifying the town has never wavered. Whether hosting flower shows, sponsoring classes on floral arrangement, or planting trees and flowers throughout the city, the Women's Club continues to be one of the primary sources of beautification in South San Francisco. In addition to beautifying South San Francisco, the Club has also focused its efforts on conservation; both by adopting a recycling program and by purchasing many Penny Pines Plantations to help in the reforestation of our national forests. Additionally, the club has continued to keep all aspects of children's well being a priority, a tradition dating back to the club's founding when members made layettes for babies of people who had fallen on hard times. Since then, the members of the club were instrumental in forming the first Parents Teachers Association (PTA) in South City, and for the past ten years have assisted the staff at the well baby clinic where club members help test pre-schoolers for amblyopia. Members of the club also continue to volunteer with the local Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program and with the Grandma Pen Pals program that fosters penmanship and communication skills with 5th graders. Mr. Speaker, at the time of its founding, the Club lacked a permanent meeting place and was forced to hold meetings at various social halls or in member's homes. Although club dues were initially 10 cents a month, the ladies were determined to own their own clubhouse, and through hard work and a variety of fundraising activities including card parties, luncheons, dinners, auctions, rummage sales, musical shows, carnivals, and cook book sales, their dream became a reality when the clubhouse was completed and dedicated on October 15, 1940. Shortly after completion, the United States found herself at War, and the Club did its part, contributing to the USO and also allowing the Office of Price Administration to rent out the building. This partnership proved valuable as the rent greatly assisted the Club in paying down their mortgage as well as the fact that the OPA left a very large table behind that the club continues to use to this day in their main hall. Over the course of the last 90 years the South San Francisco Women's Club has fully integrated itself into the South San Francisco community. Today under the stewardship of Club Chairman, Jean Altizio, the South San Francisco Women's Club continues to provide remarkable service to the Bay Area. Whether by providing refreshments and volunteers for the annual South San Francisco Scholarship Association Scholarship Tea or providing nursing homes with slippers and lap robes, or creating the Little Red Toy Box, which provides new toys for children undergoing chemotherapy, it is now impossible to think of valuable organizations in South San Francisco without the South San Francisco Women's Club coming to mind. Mr. Speaker, although the industries of the ``Industrial City'' have changed during the 90 years of the Club's existence as companies such as Jupiter Steel and Shaw-Batcher Shipyard have been replaced by companies such as Genentech and other bio-tech firms, the South San Francisco Women's Club has remained steadfast to its original purpose of promoting the educations, civic and social well-being of the South City community. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating the organization on the occasion of its 90th Anniversary and to wish them continued success for the future.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Chairman of the Committee on International Relations, my good friend from Illinois, for agreeing to move this important legislation forward. With passage of this legislation, Congress will further encourage the end to a long, protracted dispute between these two desperately poor nations. In July 2003, after considerable deliberation, I introduced this legislation to let the Eritrean and Ethiopian governments know that the international community's patience with this costly border dispute could not go on forever. Mr. Speaker, Ethiopia and Eritrea fought an unnecessary and bloody two-year war beginning in May 1998, which claimed 100,000 lives and displaced more than 1,000,000 people. The damage of the war was exacerbated by a preventable food crisis that left nearly 12 million people at risk of starvation. Today, 20 years after the 1984 Ethiopian famine, both Ethiopians and Eritreans rely increasingly on food aid abroad while their governments spend hundreds of millions of dollars on weapons. In 2000, Ethiopia and Eritrea signed a comprehensive peace agreement in Algiers. The agreement established a neutral Boundary Commission and the parties agreed that the decision of the Commission is final and binding. In April 2002, the Boundary Commission announced its Delimitation Decision, placing the heavily disputed town of Badme in Eritrea. Both nations initially accepted the ruling, although Ethiopia later rejected the Commission's ruling. Ethiopia's refusal to accept the decision of the Boundary Commission has delayed demarcation of the boundary and is costing the international community millions of dollars because of the delay. To date, more than $600 million have been spent to keep U.N. peacekeeping troops in a 25-kilometer-wide temporary security zone between the two countries. Meanwhile, the people of both nations are starving. In Eritrea, the 2004 donor appeal included a request for nearly $150 million to meet their food requirements for this year alone. Meanwhile, 13 million Ethiopians will meet none of their food needs in the 2004-05 production year, increasing to 14 million in 2005- 06 and reaching an estimated 17.3 million by 2007-2008. Mr. Speaker, over the past decade, the United States has provided $1.8 billion in foreign assistance to Ethiopia and another $333 million to Eritrea. So, why is the international community being asked to spend one-half a billion dollars to keep Ethiopia and Eritrea from attacking each other while their people starve? Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with this picture? And why, after agreeing to the Boundary Commission's decision, has Ethiopia continued its refusal to comply with its own binding commitment? U.N. Secretary General Kofi Anan appointed Lloyd Axworthy, the former Canadian foreign minister, as his Special Envoy and charged him with reinforcing international efforts to settle the dispute and move the process forward. While I deeply disagree with the position taken by President Meles of Ethiopia, I want to commend him for extending the courtesy of meeting with the Special Envoy during his visit to Ethiopia. On the other hand, I cannot express the extent of my dismay and disappointment that President Issaias of Eritrea refused to meet the Special Envoy, illustrating his own inflexibility and disdain for international efforts. There were no preconditions for meeting Mr. Axworthy, and only a diplomatic courtesy was expected. Mr. Speaker, it is an outrage that these two countries whose citizens live on the very edge of survival cannot end their belligerent relationship, settle their dispute, and get on with addressing the critical economic, social, and political needs of their people. Instead of developing the great agricultural potential of Ethiopia and exploiting Eritrea's strategic port, these two countries find themselves permanently locked in a dispute and ultimately, appealing again to the international community for humanitarian help. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2760 sends a very clear message to both countries-- abide by the Algiers Agreement and respect international diplomatic efforts and the United States will work to build economic prosperity and peace in the border areas. However, if either country fails to abide by the Algiers Agreement or refuses to cooperate with the Special Envoy, there should be consequences. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Smith, and myself updates the resolution and has been agreed by both sides of the aisle. I want to thank my good friend from Michigan for assistance in this matter. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of this bill. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the distinguished chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the author of the Democratic substitute.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the country is at war, and the first requirement of a country at war is unity. Yesterday, the other body voted 96 to 2 to approve legislation that the 9/11 Commission's chairman, former Republican Governor of New Jersey Tom Kean, hailed as ``a dream come true.'' Afterward, one of the Republican authors of that legislation, a universally respected and admired war hero, said, ``This is one of my prouder moments because of the way this entire body has acted in the national interest.'' Mr. Chairman, what will we in what is known as the people's House be able to say of our debate today when it is done? That we pulled together in the same spirit that all Americans showed when we came together after September 11? Or that we deepened divisions by subjecting this process to rancorous and divisive partisanship? Later in this debate, we will have the perfect framework to bring unity to our Nation that experienced such unspeakable loss of life on September 11, a Nation that in the heat of an election season is becoming divided even over things that once brought us together. The Menendez substitute reflects the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission which in turn have been strongly endorsed by those who lost the most on that tragic autumn day, the families of the victims of September 11. The Menendez substitute, Mr. Chairman, minutely follows the unanimous recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission and of the legislation approved yesterday by the other body, let me repeat, by a vote of 96 to 2. The most conservative Republicans and the most liberal Democrats saw fit to vote for that legislation which is the Menendez substitute. The two dissenters raised no substantive concerns whatsoever. They simply believed that the bill was moving too fast through the legislative process. Mr. Chairman, if there are no major substantive problems with the legislation approved by the other body, why do we need to reinvent the wheel? Or perhaps more aptly, spin our wheels on legislation with divisive additional measures and legislation that does not reflect the 9/11 Commission's report? The American people do not wish to see further divisions in Washington. Troops are bleeding in Afghanistan and Iraq, tens of thousands of military families have been affected dramatically, but the bill before the House only exacerbates divisions that are fueled by the fervor of a national election. We may disagree on the virtues and shortcomings of the two major proposals, but we can all agree that divisiveness and partisanship are contrary to our national interest in the autumn of 2004. Soon we will hear some severe criticism of the Menendez substitute, but I ask my friends across the aisle, how can the Menendez legislation be so terrible since every single Republican Senator voted for it? While I strongly support the Menendez substitute, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the bipartisan spirit in which the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, my dear friend from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), approached the provisions of this legislation which are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations. Chairman Hyde took into account Democratic views in crafting title IV of this bill; and I support many of its provisions, although some measures the Democrats had proposed were left out. Mr. Chairman, we are at the hinge of history. The 9/11 Commission has spoken and the Nation is waiting. Now Congress must move assertively to further protect our Nation's security by enacting legislation in line with the commission's findings and what the American people want: well- laid plans for our security that do not sacrifice our solidarity. Mr. Chairman, in a short while we will have the opportunity to vote for a bill strongly endorsed by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, the families of the victims, and 96 Members of the other body, and to speed this critically important bill to the President's desk. The other choice is a partisan bill that does not embody all of the 9/11 Commission's intentions. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Menendez substitute. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring the attention of my friends and colleagues in Congress to an issue of a critical importance to U.S. national interests in Europe--the upcoming presidential elections in Ukraine on October 31, 2004, just days before our own elections on November 2, 2004. Ukraine has been a country at crossroads since it first regained independence in 1991. It conducted parliamentary and presidential elections but the outcome always fell far short of the international standards and democratic commitments of its own constitution. Although the government of Ukraine adopted recommendations of the OSCE into its electoral law, the implementation was lagging. On many occasions, international elections observers observed fragrant violations of the law at all levels of the Ukrainian political system. The worst abuses exploited the so-called administrative resources to virtually shut out the opposition candidates from the political process. Despite pressure from the United States Government and Congress, these practices continued. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we hoped that these elections would be a marked improvement over the past because the government of Ukraine understood how crucial they are to ensure Ukraine's integration in Europe. Ukraine's democracy and geopolitical orientation are at stake. Throughout the past year, many Ukrainian dignitaries traveled to Washington to meet with United States Administration officials and Members of Congress to assure us that these elections would be different. U.S. Members of Congress and Administration officials made regular trips to Kiev with the same message. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, our hopes were crushed when we saw how the 2004 presidential campaign was unfolding. According to information collected by international and local non- partisan monitoring groups, most of Ukraine's 225 territorial election commissions are controlled by pro-government political forces that are openly supporting the candidacy of the Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych. International observers also estimate that the twenty five presidential candidates are not genuine candidates, but are running to place Yanukovych loyalists on the electoral commissions. This practice compromises the independence of the commissions and makes a complete farce out of the Ukrainian election law. State and local Ukrainian officials are controlling and manipulating the media to shut out the main opposition candidate Victor Yuchshenko. The state officials are using illegal means to interfere in the election campaign, giving rise to grave concerns regarding the commitment of the Ukrainian Government to free and fair elections. In fact, our Ambassador to Ukraine, John Herbst, most recently publicly stated that Ukraine is not meeting its commitments to conduct fair and transparent elections. I am also concerned by the behind the scenes deal between President Putin and Prime Minister Yanukovych. It is obvious that Mr. Yanukovych is the preferred candidate of Russia, and I wonder how much of the Ukrainian political sovereignty and economic freedom have been ceded to Russia in exchange for its financial support I hope that this resolution will send an important message to the Ukrainian electorate and the Ukrainian political elite that the U.S. Congress cares deeply about the future of Ukraine. Ukrainian citizens must have confidence that the legal system will protect their rights and that their political will and their votes will be counted, and the result of the elections will not be manipulated. The United States hopes to sustain a strong and friendly relationship with democratic, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine. History has shown us that the most enduring alliances are sustained between allies who share the same values and vision. The elections on October 31, 2004 will reveal whether the Ukrainian Government is committed to democracy and the rule of law and whether it is willing to become a full and equal member of the western community of democracies.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, Congress authorized a program of U.S. radio broadcasts to Ukraine that had enormous historical importance, and still do today. We know that the transition to democracy and genuine freedom of speech in the former communist countries has never been easy to implement, but such broadcasts are an essential component. Thomas A. Dine, the President of the RFE/RL, is one of my dear and closest friends. He has been a tireless fighter for democracy, human rights, press freedoms, and rule of law in Ukraine and other countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. I want to honor his contribution to the cause of freedom and democracy in Ukraine by including this speech he delivered last month in Kharkiv, Ukraine, in the Congressional Record. Today's Ukraine: The Lack of Democratic Freedoms (By Thomas A. Dine) I am in Ukraine at this time for several reasons: First, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Radio Liberty's Ukrainian broadcasting service. Radio Liberty has been a source of objective news and information for the people of Ukraine for fifty years--for this fact, I am honored to head Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and to be associated with the men and women who have brought first-class journalism to Ukraine's airwaves for half a century. Second, to remind as many Ukrainians as possible that in February 2004, the Kuchma Government kicked Radio Liberty off the Dovira Radio FM network. Third, to work with media people to try to restore our broadcasts on as many stations as possible as soon as possible. Fourth, to join all of you participating in this Global Fairness Initiatives, IREX, and Ukraine in Europe conference here in Kharkiv. Today I want to share my experiences and observations about the condition of democratic institutions in general, and free press in particular, in Ukraine. Overall, the Ukrainian people still do not have the full freedoms they deserve. This is the essence of my talk here this morning: after five decades, the Ukrainian people still do not have the full freedoms they deserve. Of course, Ukraine in 2004 is a vastly better place to be than it was in 1954. The tyrannical Soviet Union is no more, and its calculated effort to eradicate Ukrainian culture failed. Ukraine now has a semblance of political independence and free markets. But I can tell you that for those of us in the business of establishing and protecting freedom of speech and press institutions, Ukraine continues to be a heartache. For example, here's a question for you: What do Pakistan, Jordan, Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Egypt, and Kuwait have in common? Yes, they are all Muslim countries. But besides that, they all, according to the watchdog organization Reporters Without Borders, have more press freedom than Ukraine. Let me give you a more personal example: Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty broadcasts to 19 countries today, and each one is important to us. All people, whether they're from large nations like Russia or small nations like Armenia, have the right of unfettered access to news and information. But as the President of RFE/RL, owing to the lack of real press freedom here in Ukraine, starting with the murder of George Gongadze, I have spent more time dealing with Ukraine over the past four years than with any other single country. The condition of press freedom in Ukraine today is poor. Ukraine is the biggest disappointment among the countries to which Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasts. I say this because, while we certainly broadcast to countries less free than Ukraine, no other country's post-Soviet path has diverted so much from the hopes that I, and other western friends of Ukraine, had for it. Ukraine is a potentially rich and beautiful country, with immense potential with a well- educated populace 50-million strong, fertile land, bustling seaports, and a strategic location between the European Union and Russia. But a succession of corrupt governments has squandered this potential. U.S. State Department officials have even invented a term for our feelings of frustration; it is called in Washington, ``Ukraine fatigue.'' Elected American politicians and American foreign policy officials are tired of the Ukrainian leadership's resistance to liberal democratic reforms. The media environment in Ukraine has one overriding problem, and it's easy to summarize: an overwhelming majority of radio and television stations present only pro-government points of view. Experts who have studied the Ukrainian media have identified three reasons for this. The first reason is obvious: almost all national TV and radio stations are owned or controlled by government officials and their friends. Two associates of President Kuchma in particular Viktor Medvedchuk, the head of the Kuchma Administration, and Viktor Pinchuk, Mr. Kuchma's son- in-law-control a staggering portion of Ukrainian broadcast media outlets. The second reason for the dominance of the government's point of view on the airwaves is the widespread use of temniki. As I am sure all of you know, temniki are secret, unsigned daily memoranda sent by President Kuchma's staff to editors of the leading state and private media, instructing them on how to cover a particular story, and on which stories to cover and which to ignore. When the President's office determines the content of the evening news, that is not freedom--that is autocracy. Noted journalist Andriy Shevchenko put it best when he told your Parliament in 2002, ``Television news coverage in Ukraine is done by remote control.'' The third reason for the orthodoxy prevailing in Ukrainian broadcasting is the corrupt licensing process. As you know, anyone with a computer and a printer can start a newsletter or a website. But television and radio frequencies are a finite commodity that must be allotted by the government. That is how it works in the United States, and that's how it works in Ukraine. The problem in Ukraine, however, is that the licensing authorities favor broadcast entities that promise to be friendly to the government--and the process itself is so closed and confusing that protesting a given decision is futile. This concentration of media power in the hands of one political mindset and one political bloc becomes particularly dangerous during an election campaign. This year, when it is absolutely critical that voters receive as much objective and balanced information about the candidates as possible, Ukrainian voters are getting only one side of the story. Studies by outside observers have established beyond doubt that on the TV and radio stations controlled by Mr. Medvedchuk and Mr. Pinchuk, including Ukrainian state television and Ukrainian state radio, reporters are providing positive coverage of the candidate Mr. Kuchma supports, and overwhelmingly negative coverage of the candidate Mr. Kuchma most fears and dislikes. This is precisely why freedom of the press is essential to the operation of a democracy: an electorate cannot possibly make informed choices at the ballot box if the media do not report the whole truth about the candidates. President Kuchma thus enjoys a luxury that any political leader would envy--a media environment that is almost totally compliant. And this lack of diversity in the media landscape has been exacerbated by the fact that the profession of practicing journalism in Ukraine is so difficult that few people are willing to do it. I stated earlier that the condition of media freedom in Ukraine is poor. Associated with this fact is that Ukraine, to put it mildly, is not a good place to be a journalist. Reporters there have more to fear than the censorship and intimidation that unfortunately plague much of the media in the former Soviet Union. Ukrainian journalists must also fear for their lives. Since 2000, at least 39 journalists have been killed. 42 Ukrainian journalists were attacked or harassed in 2003 alone nearly double the figure for 2002. And although President Kuchma himself may not be to blame for all the mayhem that is visited on reporters in his country, there is strong evidence, indeed a tape recording, that he is directly responsible for the most notorious act of violence against a journalist in recent memory: the cruel and criminal beheading of Georgy Gongadze. Furthermore, practicing journalism in Ukraine entails enormous economic burdens. While there is a small group of well-connected journalists that is very well-paid, low salaries are the rule. Expenses such as computers, transmitters, newsprint, and paper are very burdensome for the average Ukrainian enterprise. Private media outlets have a limited pool of advertisers from which to draw extra revenue, and therefore have a hard time turning a profit. When you have impoverished media employing impoverished journalists, the result is a journalistic climate that is extremely conducive to corruption: people with money can get their stories told and their views expressed, while people without money cannot. Moneyed interests--including government officials--can manipulate coverage of their actions, as cash-starved newspapers are offered financial inducements to tell the payer's side of the story. Call it journalistic bribery. Meanwhile, the prevalence of organized crime has made targets of journalists who dare to print the truth about corruption. And law suits against media outlets for defamation are on the rise. In a climate such as this, when independent journalists face everything from lawsuits to jail to death, it is almost a miracle that anyone is willing to pursue the profession. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has experienced the hostility of the Ukrainian media environment firsthand. As a broadcast entity funded in the United States and produced in Prague, we cannot be intimidated by President Kuchma and his goons. But while Kuchma can't go after RFE/RL, he can go after our affiliate stations in Ukraine, and that is precisely what he has done. The government's crusade against Radio Liberty began in earnest in February 2004 when, after a five-year, close working relationship, our Ukrainian-language programs were removed from the Dovira FM radio network by the company's new owner, who is a political supporter of President Kuchma. Dovira was RFE/RL's major affiliate; it gave us the ability to reach some 60 percent of the population of Ukraine, including Kyiv. The explanation given by the new owners--that RFE/RL news programs did not fit the envisioned new format of the radio network--ignored the fact that Dovira listenership was highest when our programs were on its airwaves. And in fact, authorities later admitted to some of us that the Dovira action was taken for political, not commercial, reasons. The attack on Radio Liberty intensified in March, when Radio Kontynent, an FM commercial station in Kyiv that had begun to air RFE/RL programming two days earlier, was raided and closed by Ukrainian authorities. The station's transmission equipment was seized and three employees were briefly detained. This station also carried the programs of other international broadcasters, including the Voice of America, BBC, Polish State Radio, and Deutsche Welle. Serhiy Sholokh, the owner of Radio Kontynent, fled Ukraine and has received political asylum in the United States. On that very same day, an RFE/RL representative was scheduled to meet in Kyiv with Heorhiy Chechyk, the owner of an independent FM station in Poltava, to finalize a contract to broadcast RFE/RL programs. The director was killed in a suspicious automobile accident en route to this meeting. RFE/RL continues to broadcast in Ukraine on seven independent radio stations in smaller cities and a small network in Crimea. In addition, our board, the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, has added additional shortwave frequencies into Ukraine in an effort to continue to provide our popular programming to listeners in Ukraine. But the Kuchma Administration is doing its best to prevent us from gaining greater access. Over and over again, owners of radio stations in Ukraine tell us that they are being threatened by Ukrainian authorities and told not to take RFE/RL programs. Some station owners who earlier showed interest now are unwilling even to meet with us. The government has exerted financial pressure on potential affiliates as well, threatening a tenfold increase in the licensing fees of any TV or radio station that rebroadcasts foreign programming. Their tactics, in other words, are no different from those of the mafia. The website of RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service, www.radiosvoboda.org, has a substantial following in Ukraine. But even our Internet efforts have faced government obstruction. Earlier this year, RFE/RL attempted to send a ``mirror server'' to Kyiv, which would have provided Internet users in Ukraine with much quicker and more reliable access to the site. Ukrainian customs, however, refused to admit the server, seizing on a clerical error to accuse RFE/RL of attempted smuggling. Just looking at the harassment Radio Liberty has faced in Ukraine, you can see why Reporters Without Borders has given Ukraine such low marks. In addition to the problems I mentioned earlier, there is one more problem plaguing the Ukrainian media environment-- and this one is the most worrisome of all. It is apathy. Over and over again, scholars and observers of Ukraine note that when the government interferes with freedom of the press, the Ukrainian people--including journalists--do not protest much. As one Ukrainian journalist has stated, ``Freedom of speech is not valued in our society, and its violation does not cause public outrage'' when it is threatened. Ladies and gentlemen, if I can leave you today with one message, it is that freedom of expression does matter. There's a reason that the founders of the United States put freedom of speech and freedom of the press at the top of the Bill of Rights. There's a reason that Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ``If it were left to me to decide whether we should have a government without a free press or a free press without a government, I would prefer the latter.'' There's a reason Franklin Roosevelt called it ``the first freedom.'' There's a reason it occupies an important place in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That reason is that without a free press, society simply does not work--and its people cannot prosper. Newspapers, radio, and television perform two functions that are absolutely critical: first, they allow a nation's citizens to engage in an ongoing conversation with one another, and to form intelligent opinions about how their society should be run; and second, they serve as a check against government corruption. It is a universal truth of human nature that power corrupts. A free press is the most important protection we the people have against government's inevitable tendency to increase its own power. This is the critical difference between the Communist view of government and the democratic view of government: the Communists preached that the government knew best. The democratic view is that because power corrupts, government cannot be trusted and it therefore must be checked in every way possible. That is why democracy requires a representative legislature, independent courts, and, most importantly, a free press. One of my favorite words in the English language is ``obstreperous.'' I am told that in Ukrainian it is halaslivy. If you look at the word's Latin roots--``ob''-- against, and ``strepere''--to make a noise--you can get an idea of what it means: unruly, clamorous, noisy, defiant. What Ukraine needs more than anything now is for you, the Ukrainian people, to be more obstreperous. If corrupt officials violate your rights, make lots of noise. If they shut down the TV stations they do not control, make lots of noise. If they send goons to polling places when you are trying to vote for your local mayor, make lots of noise. And if they try to steal next month's election, make lots of noise. Protest, defiance, noise, demanding the truth--these are the fundamental ingredients of freedom and democracy. My fondest wish is for this to be the last anniversary that Radio Liberty ever celebrates in Ukraine; nothing would make me happier than for us to become obsolete. But as long as Ukraine lacks a free press, Radio Liberty will be with you-- if it takes another 50 years, we will not abandon your cause of real freedom, of real democratic institutions. Remember, though, that the most important role will be played by you, the people. Never forget that apathy is the dictator's best friend--and that obstreperousness is the dictator's worst nightmare. Ukraine is a proud place, but it is not a free place. A window was opened when the Soviet Union dissolved and the nation-state of Ukraine arose again--and now it's up to you to make sure that the window stays open, so that Ukraine can at last breathe the same fresh air, that is a fully free media, that we in the West have worked so hard for and been fortunate enough to breathe for so long.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, sometimes it takes a barely averted catastrophe awaken us to potential dangers. Recently, more than 140 pounds of explosive materials were stolen from a law enforcement storage facility in San Mateo, California. This is enough to destroy a small office building or to blow a hole in the Golden Gate Bridge. Thankfully, police quickly caught the suspects and recovered all of the explosives. However, we cannot and should not be forced to rely on capturing criminals after a theft to keep our communities safe. After learning what happened I immediately contacted my good friend, and Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, Chris Shays, to hold a hearing in San Mateo. Chairman Shays recognized right away the seriousness of this problem and graciously agreed to hold a Subcommittee field hearing on August 2, 2004. During the course of the hearing, we heard from representatives of law enforcement at the federal, state and local levels, as well as members of the explosives industry. Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that in the 20-plus years I have been a member of the House of Representatives, this hearing was clearly one of the most informative that I had ever been a part of. However, I was shocked at the abysmal performance by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), which is tasked with the responsibility of regulating the sale of explosives in our country. During the hearing, it became quite clear that ATF had absolutely no idea of how many explosive storage sites there are in this country. Given the fact that our country uses about 2.5 million metric tons of explosives every year, the idea of any of it being unaccounted for should concern all of us. Equally troubling was the revelation that there is minimal regulation--and zero enforcement--of the storage of equally, or even more hazardous explosive material by law enforcement agencies, which means that communities across this country face a menace that we need to address right away: large caches of high explosives are being kept in countless locations, with nobody held accountable for their safe-keeping. Mr. Speaker, this is a September 10th standard for a September 12th world, and it is simply unacceptable. We need uniform federal standards that will be uniformly enforced across the country. I am pleased to report to my colleagues that the Shays-Lantos legislation that we are introducing today creates such standards. There are obvious and logical reasons for local law enforcement agencies to have explosive materials. For example, a police agency that maintains a bomb squad unit, as many larger departments do, needs a ready supply of material for training purposes. Other legitimate uses include training bomb-sniffing dogs or holding confiscated contraband for evidentiary purposes. No one doubts the legitimate need for local law enforcement agencies to maintain storage facilities, but the lack of any clear guidelines on the manner of storage is very troubling. At a time when explosives are the preferred weapon of choice of international terrorists, it was alarming to learn of a facility, located just a few miles from the heart of a major metropolitan area, that was as undefended and unprotected as the facility in San Mateo. The stolen materials could have been sold to the highest bidder and used against any target, near or far away. And the same can be said for storage locations nationwide. To address this shortcoming the Shays-Lantos legislation, H.R. 5162, the Law Enforcement Explosive Storage Enhancement Act, requires every state to submit a list to the Attorney General reporting how many locations are in their respective states. The legislation further requires an inventory to be kept so that the Attorney General is aware of how much explosive material is being stored at these facilities around the country. These changes will allow better monitoring of these dangerous materials. In addition the Shays-Legislation to create uniform federal regulations to ensure that all local law enforcement agencies are storing their explosives in a safe and secure manner. This includes requiring law enforcement facilities to have a security system that, at a minimum, will include either a video surveillance camera or an alarm system capable of notifying the agency of an unauthorized entry. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Shays and I are cognizant of the fact that many of our local police chiefs are facing the tightest budgets they have ever dealt with, and that this requirement could produce a major burden for many local officers. That is why we included a matching grant program to assist law enforcement agencies cover the costs associated with improving their security at their explosive storage sites. However much the cost of improving security at these facilities may be, I can assure you that it is less than the cost of allowing these types of explosive materials to fall into the hands of terrorists. Mr. Speaker, after listening to the testimony from all of the witnesses, it became increasingly apparent that it would make no sense for the federal government to require law enforcement agencies to have licenses to store high explosives, as private-sector entities are required to do. When private-sector entities that sells high explosives are told to improve storage security or face the prospect of losing their licenses, they will shape up--or else they lose access to the explosives. But law enforcement agencies have no such economic incentives; we're not going to take these materials away from them. So some other form of financial incentive, under federal government control, is called for. The H.R. 5162 ensures compliance from local jurisdictions by using the enormous power of the Congressional purse. This legislation tasks the Attorney General with inspecting law enforcement storage facilities, and if a facility is found to be in non-compliance with federal regulations, our bill requires the Attorney General to reduce that law enforcement agency's Department of Justice grants by 10%. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Shays and I are introducing this legislation because we want to ensure the safety of this country. The tragedy of September 11, 2001 destroyed the innocence of our nation and opened our eyes to the true threat of terrorism. That awful day revealed that the United States was confronting a ``Guns of Singapore'' phenomenon. As our colleagues undoubtedly know, during the Second World War, the guns of Singapore, a mighty array of armaments, were fixed in place aiming out to the ocean, defending the island from the expected threat. Instead, the true threat, the actual invasion and the eventual occupation of Singapore, came from the land--and the massive guns were never fired in battle. Likewise, prior to September 11, the United States had not directed its enormous power in the proper direction. Mr. Speaker, there are many fronts in the international struggle against terrorism. Passage of the H.R. 5162, the Law Enforcement Explosive Storage Enhancement Act, will be a crucial step in this battle, as it will prevent potential terrorists from easily accessing explosive materials stored throughout the country. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in calling for its immediate passage.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to pay tribute to James A. Gallagher, who is retiring after 28 years as the voice and face of the San Mateo County Transit District, which operates throughout my Congressional District. For almost three decades Mr. Gallagher has worked to improve our community, and he has left a lasting mark on the agency and the Bay Area as a whole. Both his colleagues and the citizens of San Mateo County will miss his leadership. Born in Fresno, California, James Gallagher joined the United States Marine Corps were he served our country for two years. After his service in the Corps, James worked for several newspapers throughout the region, before becoming the sportswriter, copy-editor and city editor for the Redwood City Tribune in my district. James left the newspaper industry to become the fifth employee hired at the San Mateo County Transit District in March 1976. Back then the transit district operated in a dozen cities in San Mateo County and served 7,500 riders per day. Today, SamTrans connects 100,000 people each day to all 20 communities in the county, as well as cities from San Francisco to Gilroy, California. SamTrans has become a major player in transportation in the Bay Area through its gifted employees, and due, in no small measure; to the perseverance of Mr. Gallagher. James rose up through the ranks at SamTrans, from the Public Information Officer to the Director of Administration and Marketing and finally the Deputy General Manager. Mr. Speaker, when James went to Stanford University, he would have to race his teammates each week to make the traveling squad for the university track team. His friends like to say that even then he was racing to catch the bus. At SamTrans, James worked tirelessly to ensure that not one resident would have to run to catch the bus. He will be remembered as someone who, among other things, attempted to make the county accessible for those who were underprivileged, underserved and underrepresented. Mr. Speaker, James A. Gallagher's contribution to the growth of SamTrans cannot be measured or replicated. I urge my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to James A. Gallagher, and wishing him well on his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of this week's anniversary of independence of numerous Latin American countries, of our country's National Hispanic Heritage Month, and in special recognition of Latinos in my district and throughout our country. Today, September 15, five Latin American countries commemorate their independence, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. In addition, Mexico and Chile celebrate their independence days on September 16 and September 18, respectively. I join these nations in mutual celebration of liberty, democracy and freedom, values which we hold so dear. Today also marks the beginning of our country's National Hispanic Heritage Month. During this month, America celebrates the culture and traditions of our friends and neighbors who trace their roots to Mexico and the Spanish-speaking nations of Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. I am proud that my district is the home of more than 100,000 residents of Hispanic or Latino descent. This community is comprised of individuals who cherish their various ethnicities, national origins, and opinions. And yet, the Hispanic-American community is united by the importance that they place on faith, family, hard work, and the hope of sharing in a better America. We in Congress must re-dedicate ourselves to ensuring that our friends and neighbors in the Hispanic community have the opportunity to build their businesses, take full advantage of our schools and universities, and unite their families across borders-- a task upon which my colleagues in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have endeavored for many years. Mr. Speaker, the Hispanic community is a vital part of my district and our country. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in support and celebration of the many Latin American countries celebrating their independence this week, of the beginning of our great National Hispanic Heritage Month, and of all our Hispanic brethren.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this important resolution and urge all of my colleagues to do so as well, and I would first like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for introducing this important and timely resolution. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) is a fighter for human rights and democracy in Asia and throughout the world, and I am delighted to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, when Hong Kong reverted to Chinese control in 1997, some of us who cared deeply about the future of Hong Kong went to witness that event. We feared that the Chinese government would not be true to its word that the people of Hong Kong would be able to maintain their free and open way of life and that they would be free of interference from the Mainland government. My worst fears about China's intentions have now materialized. On the surface, much about Hong Kong remains the same. The people of Hong Kong continue to play a role in the running of their economy. Just this past weekend, elections were held for half of the seats of the Legislative Council. Opposition is strong and growing in the Hong Kong legislature, and the local press often criticizes those who govern Hong Kong. But, Mr. Speaker, there are very troubling signs that the Chinese government has lost its patience with Hong Kong's independent way of life and is moving steadily to bring the people of Hong Kong under the firm grip of Beijing. Last year, hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong citizens turned out on the streets after the Hong Kong government at the Mainland's demand attempted to erode civil liberties in the name of protecting national security. Three prominent members of the press who often criticize the Chinese government recently resigned their positions after threats were made to the safety of their families. And, Mr. Speaker, the Chinese government recently declared that universal suffrage would not apply to the election of the chief executive in 2007 or to the election of members of the Legislative Council in 2008. Despite the solemn promise of the Sino-British Joint Declaration that democratic reform would continue in Hong Kong towards universal suffrage, the Chinese government has clearly had enough of Hong Kong's independent voices. The Chinese leadership fights full democracy in Hong Kong for a very simple reason: they fully understand that Hong Kong would thrive and prosper under a fully democratic government. Such democratic success would make it impossible to tell the rapidly growing middle class in Shanghai, Beijing, and other cities throughout China that the Chinese people are not ready for open and free elections and that chaos would ensue should such elections occur. Yesterday's election results from Hong Kong demonstrate clearly the need for fundamentally changing Hong Kong's electoral system. Even though Hong Kong democrats made gains in the elections, they can never win a majority in the Legislative Council because half the seats are chosen by pro-Beijing committees, not the people of Hong Kong. This situation is unacceptable. Our resolution makes clear that the United States is deeply dissatisfied with these negative trends in Hong Kong, particularly the Chinese government's refusal to ensure that all elected officials in Hong Kong are elected by popular vote. It also calls upon the Chinese government to honor its treaty obligations under the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Mr. Speaker, it remains my modest hope that the Chinese government will recognize the error of its current approach to Hong Kong and give the people of Hong Kong the full democracy they so richly deserve. I support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I stand in strong support of this resolution. This important resolution supports the people of Syria, who live under a violent, repressive regime. And I am delighted to commend my good friend and distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), for bringing this resolution before the Congress. It was just 3 weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, that I was in Damascus, Syria, for a series of discussions and meetings with the government of Syria, specifically the foreign minister, our ambassador, and a number of people in Syrian academic and media life. Last fall, the Syrian Accountability Act was approved overwhelmingly on a vote of 398 to 4. That bill addressed Syria's behavior in the Middle East, including its sponsorship of terrorist groups and its continuing occupation of Lebanon and its willingness to allow terrorist groups to filter into Iraq. Since the passage of that act, Syria has continued to make only token efforts to prevent the infiltration of foreign terrorists into Iraq. It continues to host terrorist headquarters in Damascus, it maintains 17,000 Syrian troops in Lebanon, it supports the terrorist organization Hezbollah, it transfers Iranian arms to Hezbollah, and it continues its vicious anti-American propaganda on all government-controlled media. When I met with President Assad in Damascus last year, I urged him to change his government's behavior, both at home and abroad, so that Syria at long last could rejoin the ranks of the civilized world. I repeated that message to Foreign Minister Shaara in a press conference last month in Damascus. Perhaps not surprisingly, while my press conference received considerable attention from the media throughout the region, the Syrian press was prohibited from covering the event. In fact, the Syrians let it be known before my trip that they would be displeased if I were even to hold a press conference. I nevertheless, of course, did so, fully aware that I was delivering a message with which most Syrians agreed but none could utter in public without the severest consequences. The resolution before us is one result of Syria's failure to heed the advice that I and many others, including our Secretary of State Colin Powell, have given. Another result was an all-too-rare slap from the international community in the form of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, passed earlier this month and long overdue, which calls for an end to Syrian interference in and control of Lebanese affairs, the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon, the disbanding of all militias in Lebanon, including Syria's Hezbollah terrorist movement. The resolution before us today focuses on Syria's brutal suppression of dissent and human rights at home within Syria, for which Damascus must be held accountable. After all, nobody has suffered more from the brutality of the Syrian government than the Syrian people themselves. Syria continues to commit egregious human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary detentions of political prisoners without trial, imprisonment of parliamentarians who dare to deviate from the Baath party line, censorship and harassment of journalists, and the lightest of sentences for so-called honor killings. According to Amnesty International, Syria is engaged in a campaign to harass and intimidate human rights organizations until their members leave the country. We cannot credibly say we favor political reform in the Middle East if we ignore Syria's crimes against its own citizens. In 2003, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights classified Syria as one of the world's most repressive regimes. It is very important that Congress be on record not merely to criticize the Syrian government for its actions abroad but, just as importantly, to express our support for the Syrian people in their struggle to achieve the kind of government they should have. Mr. Speaker, a Syria that is accountable to world standards and norms, a Syria that respects its own citizens and no longer occupies Lebanon or hosts and supports terrorists must be a central goal of our essential project of reforming the Middle East. In the long run, a Middle East in which people are stakeholders in public life offers the greatest hope for peace and safety in the region and beyond. I urge all of my colleagues to support this carefully crafted resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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.