Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), my good friend. (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic resolution. It recognizes the security needs of the State of Israel. It holds out the hope for peaceful negotiations once a negotiating partner is found on the Palestinian side, and it underscores bipartisan American support for peace, tranquility, progress, and security in the region. I am delighted that we are endorsing both the President's position and Senator Kerry's position, which on this issue are identical. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If I might be permitted, I would like to express our appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his extraordinary work in bringing this resolution before the body.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding time, I yield myself such time as I may consume, because I would just would like to remind my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia, that there may not have been any successful suicide attempts in some time; there are weekly suicide attempts which are thwarted by the vigilance of the Israeli Defense Force. So the fact that suicide bombers do not succeed in blowing up additional groups of innocent civilians is not an indication that the attempts at suicide bombings have come to an end. Secondly, may I remind my friend that innocent civilians are killed in ways other than through suicide bombing. A pregnant mother and four of her young daughters were killed in cold blood just this past month. A pregnant woman with four small daughters in her car, all six of them were killed just this past month. So I do not think it is accurate to portray a picture which would indicate that the attempts at extremist violent terrorism is over. The attempts are less successful than they were at a time when Israel was less prepared to deal with it.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, before recognizing my friend from New York, I would like to express my deep appreciation to the Republican leader for his extraordinary efforts on behalf of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), my good friend and a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) who, in this very brief time with us has made a notable contributions to the work of his body.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), for her usual courtesy. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield a minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first pay tribute to my dear friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), for her effective leadership on this issue, as well as to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, my fellow Californian (Mr. Dreier), and the chairman of our committee, the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Just a few short weeks ago, the members of a key United Nations committee gathered in New York to make a critically important decision related to internationally-recognized human rights. They met to determine next year's membership in the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Shockingly, when Africa's turn came to nominate its candidate, they unveiled their choice: Sudan, a country which is currently engaged in a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region, where thousands and thousands of innocent men, women, and children have lost their lives in an orgy of assassinations. Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that the government of a totalitarian regime, currently engaged in the mass slaughter of its own citizens, would be entrusted with protecting human rights elsewhere across the globe. Properly, the United States delegation simply walked out of the meeting in disgust. While I am a supporter of the United Nations, Mr. Chairman, for too many years we have allowed the deliberations of the U.N. General Assembly, the Human Rights Commission in Geneva, and many other critical multilateral bodies to be polluted by the machinations of rogue regimes. Despite the fact that the Cold War ended over 10 years ago, spurring a new wave of democratization across much of the globe, authoritarian regimes still maintain a chokehold on key decisions at the United Nations. Working through the so-called Non- aligned Movement, authoritarian and dictatorial regimes control the regional group caucuses in Africa, Asia, and some other parts of the world that form common positions on United Nations issues and nominate candidate countries for leadership positions. Sudan's accession to the Human Rights Commission was only the latest example of a broken system which favors rotten regimes. Three years ago, the world's leading human rights abusers came together to unceremoniously vote the United States off the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. As a result, one of the world's greatest human rights violators, the government of the People's Republic of China, got a free pass that year. Also, in 2001, Mr. Speaker, the United Nations convened the World Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa, which I attended. The conference itself went down in flames after it was hijacked and turned into a forum for nondemocratic regimes to launch vicious hateful attacks on the Democratic State of Israel. Mr. Speaker, I, for one, am sick and tired of the world's dictatorships making key decisions at the United Nations, shouting out the voices of the democratic governments of the world. For that reason, I am pleased to join with my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), in introducing this legislation before the House today. The United States International Leadership Act of 2004 will require our Department of State to take effective measures to end this nonsense and to give our diplomats the tools they need to ensure that America once again punches at its weight class in New York. The legislation accomplishes this important task by creating a Democracy Caucus to support democratic forces at the United Nations by directing the President to use our influence to reform United Nations rules so that rogue regimes cannot gain leadership positions, and by providing appropriate training to make our diplomats more effective in multilateral diplomacy. Mr. Speaker, largely in response to this legislative initiative, the administration this year launched a democracy caucus in New York and in Geneva. Our leadership act will lend important new impetus for this effort, and it will help to ensure that it is broadened across the United Nations system. But the recent failure to keep Sudan off the Human Rights Commission shows that much work needs to be done. Our diplomats should have known in advance that Sudan was soon to be nominated for the commission, and the world's democratic nations should have been ready to block this mind-numbing decision. Our leadership act will force the Department of State to practice effective U.N. diplomacy. In coordination with our democratic partners, it will make it a much higher priority. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why new democracies in Latin America and Asia and Africa should continue to vote with the likes of Cuba and the Sudan. An effective democracy caucus will help states like Chile and Botswana and Thailand to have a positive alternative to mindless solidarity with authoritarian regimes. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4053. 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. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I had the distinct honor to be in Hungary just a few weeks ago for the opening of the Holocaust Memorial and Documentation Center in Budapest, Hungary. As you know, this year marks the 60th Anniversary of the Nazi German occupation of Hungary and the Hungarian Holocaust. During these dark days sixty years ago, over half a million Hungarian Jews were sent to Nazi extermination camps. By establishing an official Holocaust Memorial, the government of Hungary has finally acknowledged the responsibility of the Hungarian people for atrocities committed during the Hungarian Holocaust. It is my hope that this Memorial will teach the present and future generations of Hungarians that intolerance and hatred have no place in a free and open and democratic society. Mr. Speaker, at the dedication of the Hungarian Holocaust Memorial and Documentation Center, many dignitaries and elected Hungarian officials gave moving and eloquent remarks, but none more so than the outstanding address of Hungary's current Prime Minister, Peter Medgyessy. The Prime Minister has been a critical voice in fostering democracy and respect for democratic principles in Hungary. His powerful and poignant remarks made at the opening of the memorial further confirmed his deep commitment to the values of political democracy. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Prime Minister Medgyessy's speech at the dedication of the Holocaust Memorial in Budapest be placed in the Record, and I urge all of my colleagues to read and think about this excellent statement. I am certain they will find it as moving as I do. Address by Peter Medgyessy on the 60th Anniversary of the Hungarian Holocaust Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Friends, remembering one of the gravest tragedies of the twentieth century, I would like to share a harrowing story with you. A historian friend of mine showed me a postcard, a few days ago that was written by two Hungarian sisters to their family. The postcard was thrown out of a train at Tatabanya in December 1944. Gyongyi and Erzsi, writers of the postcard try to reassure their loved ones. They write that they are well. The things of their relatives, Lajos and Imre are safe, while the luggage of another relative, Judit did not arrive to the ghetto because the gates were closed. They close the letter by sending many kisses to the children and promising that they would bring presents back from Germany. Gyongyi was transported to Ravensbruck; and she survived. Her sister, Erzsebet--transported away with her--perished. Ladies and Gentleman, this national tragedy--the murder of six hundred thousand Hungarians of Jewish origin was a terrible, evil, inhumane crime. It happened here, it happened to us. It happened to people who used to have names, families and lives. We can only live with our joint past if we never forget them. Not just the event but also the people: Gyongyi and Erzsebet, Lajos, Imre and Judit. We will not forget them because we miss them. We miss them all badly. We have lost them and we have also lost their children and grandchildren. We have lost their dreams, memories, their talents, success and failures. We can see their absence. And we know that we are less in number and less in power without them. This is why this place is so important. We can never give back those many everyday people killed in the Holocaust to their families. However, talking about the past frankly and credibly in their stead is our responsibility. The Holocaust Documentation Center stands here not just for ourselves but rather for them: for Gyongyi and Erzsi. As the Prime Minister of this Republic I declare that this heinous crime was committed by Hungarians against Hungarians. There is no excuse or explanation. But there are the memories, the common bereavement and--hopefully-- reconciliation after sixty years. Reconciliation but no forgetting. Because bereavement, my friends, the mourning of the nation is always our common pain. This suffering is common in concentration camps, in Recsk and on the 23rd of October 1956. It is the major obligation of every generation after the Holocaust to remember and to make others remember: our children, grandchildren, and all of us. Forgetting is the ally of tyranny. Forgiveness and remembrance are the allies of freedom. We have a task; to search and tell the truth, to correct those who are wrong, and to call to accounts those who lie. And first of all we must bow our heads to those who suffered. Never before have we Hungarians had so much confidence in our future. Within a matter of days we will become part of an even larger community. New perspectives open up to Hungary. The shaping of a new European, modern Hungarian republic starts now. This is the time to confirm that we believe in the power of learning and teaching. We are not too lazy to learn from our own history and the example of other nations. We remember the past for the future. We must say also here and now and again for our joint future: never again! This should be the place of eternal remembrance. Understanding our past is a joint responsibility and a difficult one. Let's bow our heads to all victims of the Holocaust.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the bizarre priorities of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle this morning are shocking. Faced with a choice between taking care of our Nation's citizen soldiers or giving employers incentives to ship jobs overseas, the leadership on the other side of the aisle has chosen outsourcing. As we all know, the continuing activation of military reservists to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan has imposed a tremendous burden on many of our country's businesses. In fact, the United States Chamber of Commerce estimates that 70 percent of reservists who are sent to active duty work in small and medium-sized companies. When their employees are asked to leave their jobs and serve our Nation, many of these businesses are unable to continue operating successfully and face severe financial difficulties, even bankruptcy. These employers are sacrificing much so that America can be safe. To address this matter, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and I offered an amendment that would have given all American businesses a tax credit to help them continue to pay their employees who are called to active duty, as well as help small businesses temporarily replace reservists who have been called to duty. Mr. Speaker, this common-sense amendment would have encouraged all employers, but especially small businesses to rebridge the gap between what their employees earn in civilian life and what the military pays when they are on active duty. Those who do so would be eligible to receive a tax credit of up to $15,000 of the wages they pay to members of the Guard and Reserves for as long as they are on active duty status. Many small employers are having a difficult time hiring temporary workers to replace their employees who have been called up to active duty in the National Guard or the Reserves. The Lantos-McGovern amendment will provide a tax credit of up to $6,000 to help small employers defray the costs of hiring a new worker to replace a guardsman or reservist who has been called up to active duty. Small manufacturers would be eligible for a tax credit of up to $10,000 to assist in hiring temporary workers. The cost of this amendment was offset by striking a provision, section 311, that we let companies invest their profits anywhere in the world except in the United States. By allowing companies to get the benefits of low tax rates for investments located in high-tax countries, the bill is creating a strong incentive to invest overseas, which will result in the United States losing both capital and jobs. Instead of providing incentives to send jobs abroad, Congress should take action to help businesses cope with the loss of an employee to active duty and we should protect employees and their families from suffering a pay cut while serving our Nation. We cannot let the cost of that service force businesses into financial ruin and leave reservists and their families to suffer substantial losses in pay. What kind of values do our actions reflect if we are prepared to send people overseas to fight for our security, leaving their families and employers vulnerable to financial hardship, while giving U.S. businesses ever more rewards for shipping jobs out of the country. This is a topsy-turvy set of priorities which we must reject.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I want to thank the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his leadership in this area. The visa waiver program is a critically important program, under which countries that send citizens that do not engage in visa fraud or overstay their visas do not have to obtain visas to visit our country for business or tourism. It has proven to be a very effective program for dealing with the increased global travel of the past few decades. However, I firmly agree with my good friend from Wisconsin that citizens from countries who do not have to go through the visa process should have secure, tamper-proof passports to ensure that the visa waiver program is not abused by individuals who try to enter our country with counterfeit passports. Indeed, the statutory deadline of October 26, 2004 in the Enhanced Border Security Act of May 2002 encouraged International Civil Aviation Organization to accelerate its ongoing efforts in the development of uniform standards for secure passports, including the use of biometric data in such passports. Given the progress so far, I have no objection to an extension of this current statutory deadline to allow countries to implement these standards. However, I believe that the Congress should seriously consider a two- year extension rather than the one-year extension in the current bill. I understand that ICAO did not complete preliminary biometric standards using facial recognition technology until May 2003 and is on only now finalizing these standards. In order for the new passports and the technology needed to read these passports to become mature and to be fully tested, as well as producing the new passports and acquiring and deploying the devices necessary to read the new passports, more than the one year extension being approved today may well be necessary. In this context, I think it may well be prudent to consider moving towards a two-year extension as this legislation moves through the legislative process, and I would support that approach. if we do not, I predict we will be back here at the same time next year, approving a further one year extension. I want to once again thank my good friend from Wisconsin for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to support this legislation at this time.

Mr. LANTOS

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

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 97, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to express my appreciation to my friend and fellow Californian, (Chairman Bill Thomas), for his assistance in moving this legislation to the floor so expeditiously, and to my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), for their leadership on Burma and for granting me the privilege of managing this bill today for the Democratic side. Mr. Speaker, a year ago, the Burmese regime launched a brutal crackdown on Burmese democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi and other members of the National League for Democracy. Burma's authoritarian ruler simply could not accept the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi remained enormously popular a dozen years after the government nullified the fair and free elections that she won. Just 10 months ago, Mr. Speaker, President Bush signed into law my bill imposing comprehensive sanctions on Burma. My legislation was approved by this House overwhelmingly, 418 ayes to 2 noes. Sadly, the case for a tough approach toward Burma, including import sanctions, is even stronger today than a year ago. Countless National League for Democracy leaders remain behind bars. Aung San Suu Kyi, a woman of extraordinary courage, is locked inside her house and there is little prospect that the Burmese junta will engage in meaningful dialogue with the National League for Democracy and other democratic leaders. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Burmese regime is currently holding a ``national convention'' to write a new constitution for Burma. The meeting itself is a complete and utter sham. The Burmese leadership refused to let Aung San Suu Kyi participate, apparently afraid that her eloquent words would convince the delegates to move towards democracy and away from dictatorship. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is moving forward with this bipartisan initiative to renew Burma import sanctions. Burma's ruling elite, who have a questionable direct financial tie to most enterprises in Burma, must understand that they will be unable to enrich themselves off the American consumer. To those who argue that the sanctions have not worked, I have two responses. First, when Congress imposed import sanctions on Burma, we fully understood that such measures might take years, if not decades, to bring change to Burma, certainly not 10 months. If 10 months were the standard duration for American import sanctions, South Africans would still be governed by the apartheid regime, and Libya would have developed and deployed nuclear weapons instead of surrendering them to the United States. Second, the United States must make it a top priority to convince our key allies in Europe and in Asia to adopt import sanctions on the Burmese regime. Unfortunately, the executive branch has made little or no effort to accomplish this important task. If sanctions fail to quickly bring change to Burma, it is not because they represent the wrong approach; it is because high-level administration officials have not picked up the phone to urge our European Union counterparts to adopt targeted import sanctions on Burma. While we would all like to see a negotiated solution to Burma's political crisis, we cannot be naive enough to believe that Burma's leaders have changed their stripes. They have no intention of allowing Aung San Suu Kyi, a woman they tried to kill just a few months ago, to participate meaningfully in free and fair elections, let alone to transfer power to her political party. If I am proven wrong, Mr. Speaker, and Burma's ruling thugs win the Noble Peace Prize in 2005 for working out an agreement with the opposition, we will have plenty of time to express our congratulations and to lift sanctions at that point. Until then, we must ratchet up pressure on the Burmese thugs who are running that country and assure that our allies do so as well. Mr. Speaker, we all look forward to a day when we will welcome Aung San Suu Kyi to Washington as the leader of a free and democratic Burma. She will follow in the footsteps of Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic and of all of the other leaders who fought for freedom in Central and Eastern Europe. But we will achieve that goal only by maintaining strong pressure on Burma's ruling dictatorial clique and convincing our allies to do so as well. I strongly support this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to do so as well. Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) for his extraordinary leadership on this issue, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Paul Azevedo, a resident of Pacifica, California, located in my Congressional district, who passed away on May 9th. Mr. Azevedo was a popular columnist at the Pacifica Tribune, a local paper, a historian of his beloved town, and above all, a family man. Mr. Azevedo was born in Sonoma County, California on March 20, 1931. He served in the U.S. Army and earned a degree from San Jose State University. Mr. Azevedo moved with his wife Lydia to picturesque Pacifica 41 years ago where they raised four children, Mike, Rena, Martin and Joane, in this picturesque Peninsula town. Mr. Azevedo joined the Pacifica Tribune in 1966 as an ad salesman and proceeded to hold almost every imaginable job at the paper before eventually settling into his role as a columnist. Known as ``The Reactor'', Mr. Azevedo eloquently opined on all matters that affected the Peninsula. Sometimes he merely related historical anecdotes that he thought relevant to the present day. A bit of a maverick, he did not always write the conventional column, but inspired praise nonetheless for engaging his readers on a variety of diverse and interesting subjects. Mr. Speaker, no one knew more about the Pacifica and no details escaped his steel trap of a mind. In the last “Reactor” column, his family recalled all of the places around town that he loved with no area left out. As one would expect of a vocal columnist, Mr. Azevedo had strong opinions about politics, however despite those opinions his overriding desire was to insure that his beloved democracy was upheld. That is why in addition to writing his column, he also worked in the local election's office, proofreading election material in English, Chinese and Spanish and although not fluent in Chinese and Spanish, he spotted errors in the materials that fluent speakers overlooked by finding inconsistencies in the text. Mr. Azevedo also looked to preserve the natural beauty of Pacifica as a member of the Open Space Committee. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Azevedo was as much apart of Pacifica as the fog that rolls in off the ocean and the waves that crash on his beloved beaches. Both his personality and his column will be sorely missed. I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to him, and all that he meant to family, friends, and neighbors on the Peninsula.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the exceptional contributions to New York City and to our nation made by Howard J. Rubenstein. Tonight his outstanding firm, Rubenstein Associates, Inc., will mark half a century of success in public relations. Joining in the celebration will be leaders in the national, state and local government, as well as the worlds of commerce and culture--and what a fitting tribute this broad selection of friends and admirers will be! Howard Rubenstein's name is associated with quality clients across the nation, from the San Francisco Opera to the Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau. But most typical of his long and impressive list of 450 clients are the unique institutions of New York, such as the Yankees, the Guggenheim Museum and the Plaza Hotel. Howard has stood by New York City through thick and thin, hard times and flush times, and always he has displayed a unique talent for making the world see New York through his loving eyes. He's helped the city in its quest to be the quintessential American metropolis of our time. The investment he has made in the future of New York--and by extension in the country at large--has helped to further the concept of public-private partnerships. Nobody better understands the symbiotic inner workings among business, the media, politics and the civic sector than Howard does. His ability to see the big picture enables him to understand where different entities can form alliances for the betterment of all. One of Howard's most significant successes is his participation in the co-founding of the Association for a Better New York. ABNY, which remains as influential today as when it was formed 30 years ago, is a civic organization that brings together leaders from every facet of New York life to work together to improve all aspects of the City. Mr. Speaker, my respect for Howard Rubenstein was made all the more profound by his response to the September 11th attacks. Howard worked tirelessly to help the city and our nation recover. He threw himself into the task of expeditiously rebuilding downtown at a time when people worried that it might never recover. And he worked energetically to bring tourism back to New York after that terrible day. But Howard Rubenstein doesn't need a crisis to inspire his vision. He has been an instrumental force in the city's bid to bring the 2012 Summer Olympic Games to New York City. He helped transform the New York Marathon from a four-lap road race in Central Park into the most significant running event in the world. His firm has also been a huge factor in the phenomenal success of the Tribeca Film Festival--another boost to Lower Manhattan. And his efforts have brought about and transformed important institutions--for example, Howard was one of the original founders of the Museum of Jewish Heritage--A Living Memorial to the Holocaust. Mr. Speaker, Howard is one of the true mainstays of the New York City business community. Decision-makers and young, talented individuals seek out his advice and counsel all the time, and he makes himself available to assist them. Governors, senators and mayors have all turned to Howard at some point, and his firm maintains a huge civic and nonprofit practice. Organizations such as the Partnership for New York City, NYC & Co., the UJA Federation and Covenant House all acknowledge a tremendous debt to Howard Rubenstein. Howard also serves on numerous boards. A particular concern of his has been helping at-risk young people receive quality education and athletic opportunities after school. Howard serves on the boards of both the Inner City Scholarship Fund and the Board of the Police Athletic League. He's also been a long time board member of the Federal Law Enforcement Foundation, which helps raise money for families of officers who have fallen in the line of duty. His service on the board of the Central Park Conservancy has been crucial in finding private support to maintain that great urban park. Howard is always looking for ways to reinvest in New York. He never forgets how much the city has given to him in his rise to the prominent position he enjoys today. His professional and personal life testifies to his gratitude to the city--and to the country that allowed a youngster from Brooklyn to achieve his dreams. His wife, Amy, has been his strongest supporter in all of his endeavors. And his children continue to share in those dreams: His sons Steven and Richard, and daughter Roni, work side by side at his firm. Mr. Speaker, in honor of the 50th anniversary of the founding of Rubenstein Associates, and in recognition of his many contributions to his hometown and his neighbors, I ask my colleagues to join me in offering a heartfelt congratulations and thank you to Howard J. Rubenstein.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this weekend the eyes of the world will return to the beaches of Normandy as we commemorate the 60th Anniversary of D-Day, a seminal event in the liberation of Europe from tyranny that ensured peace and prosperity for generations. And as it turns out, D-Day was not the only event sixty years ago that would have a major impact on world history and the cause of freedom and justice. On June 7th, we will also celebrate the 60th birthday of Annette Lu, who has become one of most tireless fighters for democracy, women's rights and equality, and who has just been re-elected vice president of Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Lu's understanding of human rights is rooted in part in her graduate studies in the United States. She received her Masters degrees in Law from both the University of Illinois and Harvard University. After that, it would have been relatively easy for Annette Lu to stay in the United States to practice law, or to pursue a quiet legal career in Taiwan. Instead, she returned home in 1978 to run for Taiwan's National Assembly. In 1979, the authoritarian regime threw Annette Lu in jail because she had the temerity to make a speech commemorating International Human Rights Day. She spent five years and four months behind bars, but she took up the cause again immediately upon her release. Out of prison, Annette Lu continued her fight for democracy and international recognition for Taiwan. As a local official, as the National Policy Advisor to former President Lee Teng-hui, and as a leading member of the Legislative Yuan--Taiwan's highest lawmaking body--Annette Lu fought successfully for a greater role for her homeland in international affairs, for women's rights in Taiwan and around the world, and for adherence to internationally-recognized human rights. In May 2000, Annette Lu was elected Taiwan's first female Vice President, which is no small achievement. Vice President Lu has since traveled the world demonstrating Taiwan's efforts and achievements in human rights, democracy, and humanitarianism. She has built bridges to the people of Tibet and India, and for her efforts has received the Peace Corps Academy's World Peace Prize. In short, Annette Lu has made a great contribution to Taiwan and to the international community, thanks to her steadfast beliefs and her unwillingness to remain silent in the face of injustice. In that same spirit, Mr. Speaker, we here in Washington should take meaningful steps to end a continuing injustice: the manner in which our nation treats senior officials from Taiwan, including the President and Vice President. When former President Lee Teng-hui was invited to give a speech at his alma mater, Cornell University, in 1995, it was my great honor to win passage of a resolution demanding that the State Department grant him a visa. Despite fierce resistance from an administration reluctant to defy China, we won that battle, and the world kept spinning after President Lee's visit to Ithaca. Now that Taiwan's Presidential elections are past, it is high time that President Chen and Vice President Lu be welcomed in Washington, DC. This coming Sunday in San Francisco, I will have the enormous privilege of presenting Annette Lu with an award for her untiring efforts in the cause of human rights, her devotion to equal rights for women, and the personal sacrifices she has made to help uplift those who are suffering injustice. I will bring her a copy of this statement as a sign of the respect that she commands in the U.S. Congress. But Mr. Speaker, the day is coming when the Vice President and President of Taiwan will be able to visit our nation's capital and we in this body should do all that we can to hasten that historic day.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on April 15, 2004, the Holocaust Memorial and Documentation Center in Budapest, Hungary, was opened at a solemn ceremony attended by the President of Hungary, the President of Israel, and a number of other distinguished official guests. With the establishment of an official Holocaust Memorial, the government of Hungary has formally acknowledged the responsibility of Hungarian governments in the 1930s and 1940s and of Hungarian citizens for atrocities committed during the Holocaust in Hungary. In the past it has been fashionable for Hungarians to blame the German Nazis for the atrocities of that era. Unfortunately, many Hungarian citizens were complicit with the Nazis in committing atrocities, and the Hungarian Arrow Cross organization was as vicious and brutal as the German Nazis in their despicable deeds. Mr. Speaker, the timing of the opening of the Hungarian Holocaust Memorial and Documentation Center is particularly appropriate, because this year marks the 60th Anniversary of the darkest days for Hungarians during WWII. It was on March 19, 1944, that the German army occupied Hungary, and German officials began the systematic effort to exterminate Hungary's Jewish population. Over half a million Hungarian Jews were deported and met their deaths in Nazi gas chambers, the largest portion of them at Auschwitz. It is my sincere hope, Mr. Speaker, that the opening of this Memorial in Budapest will teach future generations of Hungarians that intolerance, racism, hatred and bigotry have no place in the free and open and democratic society that Hungary is becoming. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most moving statement at the Holocaust Memorial dedication was that given by the President of Hungary, Ferenc Madl, who headed the long list of dignitaries at the ceremony and presided at the opening of the Memorial. President Madl's speech was moving and eloquent. I ask that it be placed in the Record and I urge my colleagues to give it thoughtful attention. Distinguished commemorating community: What we are remembering here should never have happened. The building we are standing in used to be a synagogue. It is a sacred place, not only because it was a place of worship, but also because over the time it has become a venue for remembrance. Human suffering--the suffering of people--the remembrance of unforgettable pain, the pain felt by millions of people makes this place sacred. Commemorations and writings all discuss the genocide of the Jewish people as an event of historic tragedy. There is however something more important than history: man himself. Thus for this reason, the Holocaust is not simply ``history'' but the past of a whole generation. It is here with us in many different ways in the fate of Jews and non-Jews alike. Every life is a complete world in itself. Every deceased person has a unique face. This uniqueness tends to get lost in history. We cannot experience the extent of the tragedy in a thousand or one hundred thousand different ways. Individually however, we all have--direct or indirect--personal memories of those who perished. It is in these memories that the indescribable horror gains a face of its own. This venue of remembrance is required to help preserve the personal touch in us, which tends to fade with time. If hundreds of thousands of people suffering is a mere piece of data for someone, then being faced with but a single real story of fate, will ensure that this person will never be ignorant of our common past. Remembrance shall elevate the Holocaust into a personal drama. Distinguished remembering community, nowadays the depths of the tragedy, the numbers, are mentioned more frequently than its human-spirit content. Perhaps numbers with their abstract nature are not so painful for our conscience. It is human nature to flee from pain. If numbers call up individual faces and fates then the burden of looking to the past becomes almost unbearable. We should not shun this burden away. We do not only need to remember, because a parent, child, brother and sister sent to their deaths are there in our hearts and souls or for sinners to gain absolution from their sins, but to make sure that we are vigilant of the sins of past horrors haunting us again somewhere. In 1938 Hungarian writer Milan Fust wrote that lifting inhumanity to the level of law is without precedent, just as the fact that the human kind ``should approve its own sadism so much, that it should be proud of its animal like nature.'' Nobel laureate Imre Kertesz in the blinding light of survival saw in Auschwitz the symbol of moral status of humanity in the 20th century. Is the moral state that made the Holocaust possible now a thing of the past? We can see that mad dictators still commit mass killings among their own people, even today. We can find contemporary examples of genocide too. How horrible, that humankind has not managed to this day, to reach the moral level, where the commandment ``Thou shall not kill'' binds the hands of every Cain. How many times do we see the strangling sorrow among us over the lack of love? How many times are we still obliged to extinguish the brushfires of racial, religious, political and ethnic hatred here and in many corners of the world? This place of remembrance is not in a randomly selected spot of the world, but in Hungary, in Budapest, not far from where the ghetto was established in the dark period of 1944. This place of remembrance does not speak generally about inhumanity, brutality, about lowly instincts, the institutionalized system of murder somewhere else, but here, where we are, where all that we are discussing happened. Although the final chapter of the tragedy may have taken place elsewhere, this does not change the fact that all this was made possible here. This is where the guilty accomplices lived; this is where the guilty ignorance of those not involved prevailed. It is no excuse to say that the world too remained silent. All this happened here. We lacked the will to resist here. We failed to extend a helping hand here. This is what makes the tragedy our personal issue, a spiritual burden for all of us. It is here that we have to rely on the faith we have in conciliation, to remember all those who perished and to apologize to our surviving brothers and sisters. Being present here today is not only to remember and show solidarity, but also to express our national and human repentance. When quoting Miklos Radnoti, we say that ``we are guilty like all other nations'', we use the words of a Hungarian poet, who in his poems adopted all of us as his dear brothers and sisters, only to be marched to his martyr's death because of his provenance. This is what makes this tragedy so universal, yet Hungarian. We, the ones living here, should know what happened and how something that should have never taken place actually did happen. Distinguished remembering community, this is not a place of remembrance for only the martyred Jews. It is for all of us, the whole Hungarian society. Someone with feelings and thoughts will never have two kinds of dead. We feel the pain of every dead. In World War II, Hungary was one of the countries to suffer the largest loss of its population. Death was victorious in wars and dictatorial regimes. Every exterminated Jew is a loss for humanity; every Hungarian Jew murdered is a loss for all the Hungarian people. Jewish martyrs perished amidst the horror of defenselessness and exclusion, deprived of the hope that their individual sacrifice can help the survival of the community. The incomparable horror of the Holocaust lies in this. Today we remember them as the loss suffered by all of us Hungarians. We incessantly search for reparation for having them march to their deaths after being torn from the Hungarian society. This memorial place reminds us that we need to assume the pain of remembrance again and again in our souls. The catharsis of honest remembrance will make us better, will lend meaning to the day after and will help to look for the integrity of mankind in our communities and in every individual. May the Lord Almighty give us strength for everyone!

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on March 30th, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus held a groundbreaking Members' Briefing entitled, ``International Disability Rights: The Proposed UN Convention.'' This discussion of the global situation of people with disabilities was intended to help establish disability rights issues as an integral part of the general human rights discourse. The briefing brought together the human rights community and the disability rights community, and it raised awareness in Congress of the need to protect disability rights under international law to the same extent as other human rights through a binding UN convention on the rights of people with disabilities. Our expert witnesses included Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Mark P. Lagon; the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Ecuador to the United Nations, Ambassador Luis Gallegos; the United Nations Director of the Division for Social Policy and Development in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Johan Scholvinck; the distinguished former Attorney General of the United States, former Under-Secretary General of the United Nations and former Governor of Pennsylvania, the Honorable Dick Thornburgh; the President of the National Organization on Disability (NOD), Alan A. Reich; Kathy Martinez, a member of the National Council on Disabilities (NCD); and a representative of the United States International Council on Disabilities (USCID) and Executive Director of Mental Disability Rights International, Eric Rosenthal. As I had announced earlier, I intend to place the important statements of our witnesses in the Congressional Record, so that all of my colleagues may profit from their expertise, and I ask that the statement of Eric Rosenthal be placed at this point in the Congressional Record. The U.S. Congressional Human Rights Caucus: Members' Briefing on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a great pleasure to be here for this historic occasion. I would like to thank Representative Lantos, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, and the Disability Rights Caucus for making this possible. I'm a member of the board of the U.S. International Council on Disability (USICD) and executive director of Mental Disability Rights International (MDRI). I have spent more than ten years in the field doing international human rights work for people with disabilities--documenting human rights abuses and training activists. There has been little recognition of the vast worldwide pattern of human rights abuses against people with disabilities that exists in the world today--either by the U.S. government or the United Nations. Thus, it is a great step forward to bring these concerns to public attention today. This hearing provides an invaluable opportunity to discuss what practical next steps the U.S. Government can take to bring long over-due attention to the rights of people with disabilities worldwide. The most important leadership by a U.S. Agency, to date, has been the work of the U.S. National Council on Disability (NCD). Over the last few years, NCD has made an invaluable contribution to advancing discussion and action on international disability issues by convening International Watch, a group of experts and leaders in the U.S. disability community involved in international activities. In addition, NCD has brought attention to this issue by commissioning two important reports. In 2002, NCD commissioned Janet Lord of the Landmine Survivors Network to write a detailed legal and policy analysis of the need for a new UN disability rights convention. I recommend that report as essential background to today's discussion about the need for a UN convention. In 2003, Professor Arlene Kanter and I had the honor of serving as consultants to NCD as authors of a report, Foreign Policy and Disability: Legislative Strategies and Civil Rights Protection to Ensure Inclusion of People with Disabilities. In this report, released at a U.S. Senate briefing on September 9th, 2003, NCD cites numerous reports over the last 10 years identifying the failure of U.S. foreign assistance programs to respond to the needs of people with disabilities. Not only have construction projects been inaccessible to people with disabilities but many programs have not been accessible to people with physical or mental disabilities. More broadly, there has not been a concerted effort to document, challenge, or overcome the vast problem of human rights abuses to which people with disabilities are subject worldwide. NCD has called for the reform of U.S. foreign policy and foreign assistance to ensure the inclusion of people with disabilities in U.S. foreign policy, foreign assistance, and all U.S. government and its activities abroad. If we stand for the human rights of people with disabilities, we must stand for it in our own actions as the U.S. government. We must ensure that U.S. funded assistance programs don't discriminate. Indeed, we must ensure that foreign assistance programs respond to needs and are fully inclusive of people with disabilities. We have recently made tremendous progress in Congress. I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of Senator Tom Harkin who championed historic new legislation in the last session of Congress. The new legislation requires any construction funded by USAID around the world to be accessible to people with disabilities. It requires all U.S. programs in Afghanistan and Iraq to be accessible to people with disabilities, in conformity with USAID's Policy Paper on Disability. The most innovative new provision of legislation makes enforcement of disability rights a precondition for countries to receive funding under the new Millennium Challenge Account. By creating financial incentives for governments to take action on disablity rights, this law establishes a specialized tool of foreign policy that will help bring attention and pressure on governments to take action. In the spirit of the NCD report, it is my hope that MCA views this as more than a tool to use against governments. It should be viewed as a mandate to help governments, and non-governmental disability organizations around the world, to meet these human rights and disability rights goals. The NCD report calls on Congress to create a ``Fund for Inclusion,'' setting aside funds to support for the development of non-governmental disability rights organizations. Turning now to the question: why a convention? In ten years, MDRI has documented human rights abuses against people with mental disabilities in 21 countries on three continents. I have seen untold human suffering in every country I have visited. I've seen people locked away for their whole lives in psychiatric hospitals, as well as institutions for people with developmental or other disabilities. I have seen children and I've seen grown men and women left naked, covered in their own feces. MDRI recently documented a situation in Paraguay where two boys were placed in an institution by family members unable to care for them at home without any form of governmental support. When the boys were placed in the institution they probably had some form of intellectual disability, but they wore clothing, they talked, they interacted with people around them. For at least four years, these boys were held naked in isolation with no clothes, no toilet, no place to sleep other than a mat the floor of a barren cell. They ate their food off the floor. According to doctors at the facility, they became psychotic as a result of the years of isolation and abuse. When we visited them, they could no longer speak. All they did was scream, howl, and grunt. Their lives had been thrown away. The lives of 400 men and women in that same psychiatric facility have been thrown away. They live in isolation with little hope of returning to society. Many are denied basic medical care, much less the dignity of some privacy or their own clothing. In wealthier countries, people may be detained in clean institutions with new clothing. But their isolation from society and their pain at being denied human contact may be much the same. Does the international community speak out about these abuses? No. In almost every country of the world, you can find people relegated to the bleak, back wards of institutions--or abandoned on the streets. That same experience has been going on in many societies throughout the world. And the world has failed to speak out time and time again. The U.S. administration has said that the proper way to deal with this is through domestic legislation, rather than international human rights legislation. I beg to differ on this point. As a matter of international law, there is a very important difference between matters of purely domestic concern and issues of international human rights. The international legal framework is built upon the notion of state sovereignty. Matters of social policy and of educational policy, are protected by state sovereignty. And a government may do what it will in that area. But the international community has come to realize there are certain principles of government practice that are not just matters of state sovereignty. When governments deny their citizens basic human dignity and autonomy, when they subject them to extremes of suffering, when they segregate them from society--we call these violations of fundamental human rights. And when a country sinks so low as to deny the fundamental rights of its citizen, the world will speak out. We will hold governments accountable for the most extreme abuses. That is why we need a convention. It's not enough to offer technical assistance on how to improve the law, we must hold governments accountable for their violations. Based on my observations as a human rights investigator over the last ten years--and based on the near void of activity by established human rights oversight bodies--I believe that the abuses experienced by people with disabilities around the world are the greatest international human rights problem that goes unacknowledged in the world today. There are at least 600 million people with disabilities in the world. How many thousands of people are segregated from society in closed psychiatric facilities? By the thousands, children and young adults with disabilities are placed in orphanages and other institutions. I have met families in Armenia, Turkey, Russia, and Mexico who were heart-broken about placing their child in an institution--or who were afraid that they might have to do so one day if they could no longer provide care. I have met adults with mental disabilities living a life of terror that they may be one day forced into an institution if they cannot keep it together to fend for themselves. I have met fathers, mothers, brothers, husbands, wives who wanted to keep a relative at home with them, but their governments do not provide services that will allow families to stay together in the community. Heart breaking as it is, parents are often forced to put their children in orphanages. These are not orphans. These are children orphaned by social and medical policy that say they're different and shouldn't have a chance to live as a part of society at large. Social policies that needlessly segregate people from society are a form of discrimination. Legal systems that do not protect against arbitrary detention permit ongoing violations of human rights. These are just a few of the abuses that can be addressed by a disability rights convention. This is why we must commit ourselves to speaking out. We must make it a priority of our human rights agenda to end such intolerable abuses against people with disabilities everywhere. This Congress has adopted legislation establishing that human rights will be the core of our foreign policy. We must ensure that this promise extends to people with disabilities. When governments strip whole groups of citizens of their rights because of a disability, when governments put people away, or when they allow them to die on the streets with no dignified form of assistance, those are human rights abuses. Challenging such abuses should becomes the core of our foreign policy. In its last session, this Congress made invaluable steps in the right direction by revising our foreign assistance laws. Now let us explicitly recognize the concerns of people with disabilities as part of the pantheon of international human rights issues. I strongly encourage and appreciate the work of those members of Congress who have supported resolution 169. I call on all members to do the same. I would like to leave you with one last thought. Over the years, I have personally encountered hundreds of children and adults, old men and old women who have spent most of their life behind bars. It is amazingly easy to write these people off as subhuman. As if they are already the walking dead. Yet I have also seen a glimpse of hope in their eyes. With the smallest amount of respect for their dignity, people come to life. The tiniest hint of a possibility that a man or woman might one day leave the institution can give that person a reason to go on living. What does it matter that people far across the waters care about them and their rights? It is a reason to go on living. Members of Congress, you have a chance to contribute to their reason for living. You have an ability to contribute to give them hope. In your careers, this may be one of the least costly and greatest opportunities to challenge abuses of hundreds of millions of people. Please take that action. Please support Resolution 169. And please support the U.N. Disability Rights Convention.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This Congress always does its best work when it stands united. On this issue, my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and I stand shoulder to shoulder in striking a blow for freedom for the Chinese people.