Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as she may consume to my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has been an eloquent champion of human rights across the globe. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 40th anniversary of the incorporation of the City of Brisbane, California. This picturesque city, located just south of the City of San Francisco, boasts wonderful views of the San Francisco Bay. It may have been incorporated for only 40 years, but its storied and diverse history goes back centuries. The story of Brisbane begins with the Tribes of North Americans known collectively as the Ohlone, who inhabited the Bay Area and the slopes of San Bruno Mountain. These tribes lived off the land, which provided an abundance of rabbit and deer, and the Bay provided shellfish. By 1776, Spanish settlers had arrived, and Franciscan Missionaries followed soon after. The mountains were used for grazing sheep and cattle of the Mission Dolores de San Francisco de Assisi. When the Mission period of California's history came to an end, these same lands were secularized and dispersed as part of the Mexican land grants of the 1830's and 1840's. Mr. Speaker, the first land grant for the area that would later become Brisbane, was made to Jacob Leese in 1837. Mr. Leese named his new territory, ``Rancho Canada de Gaudalupe la Visitacion y Rodeo Viejo,'' but he then lost most of his land to settle a gambling debt. Charles Crocker purchased over 3,000 acres of the grant from Mr. Leese in 1884 for a small payment. Crocker was more successful in managing his land than Mr. Leese, and the properties eventually passed to the Crocker Land Company, which generated profits from the land through ranching and quarrying. For the next quarter of a century, few people lived on the land that was to become the Brisbane. It was not until the early 19th century that attention was focused on the Peninsula as a location for residential development. Following the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906, people began looking toward the Peninsula as a refuge for earthquake victims. In 1908, the first subdivision map in the Brisbane area was recorded, establishing saleable lots, in what was then called ``The City of Visitacion,'' which is now the location of downtown Brisbane. There was little development, however, until the 1920's and 30's when the area began to flourish and took on the name ``Brisbane.'' Mr. Speaker, those who came to Brisbane during the Great Depression and World War were filled with the American spirit, and they came to make a better life for themselves and their families. In Brisbane, land was cheap and people were able to put up a basic shelter until they could afford better housing. The community helped by assisting men with the building and women with the meals, and numerous volunteer and civic organizations assisted people in times of need. A community in every sense of the word, the residents of Brisbane shared the good times with their neighbors and banded together to get through the difficult periods. By the late 1930's the town had a post office, a library, public schools, a hotel, several small markets, a volunteer fire department and a weekly newspaper. By the 1950's, Brisbane was well on its way to becoming a modern town. A lack of local capital, inadequate civic services, and the concern that powerful neighboring communities might dictate Brisbane's future led some citizens to consider incorporation. Others, however, were fearful that becoming a city would result in the loss of the small town character everyone valued. When the County of San Mateo began to discuss bulldozing Brisbane through an urban renewal program, matters came to a head and an election was held on the issue of incorporation. On September 12, 1961, voters overwhelmingly voted for incorporation. The newly incorporated City included a mere 2.5 square miles. It was clear that additional land would be necessary to increase the city's tax base and to protect Brisbane from inappropriate and environmentally damaging development. The City solved these problems by annexing 700 acres of land which housed Southern Pacific and PG&E properties in 1962. Despite incorporation and the ensuing expansion, Brisbane faced numerous developmental concerns. The Crocker Land Company still owned essentially all of unincorporated San Bruno Mountain as well as the Crocker Industrial Park in the Guadalupe valley directly to the north of the city limits. With San Francisco to the north and the cities of the Peninsula to the south, the area in and around Brisbane was ripe for development, and the community felt the pressure. Over the next thirty years, the small but feisty City of Brisbane has led the fight to preserve both San Bruno Mountain, and the unique character of the Brisbane community. Citizens fought a plan to cut off the top of San Bruno Mountain and dump it in the Bay. Later, the city was able to prevent massive development of San Bruno Mountain with a projected population of over 60,000 people. The city was also able to defeat another proposal to build high-density housing in the area. Brisbane citizens led the battle to preserve San Bruno Mountain as a state and county park and worked to protect rare and endangered species on the mountain. In 1983, the Northeast Ridge of San Bruno Mountain and Crocker Industrial Park were annexed to Brisbane as a package, with the Industrial Park providing revenues necessary to service any development on the Northeast Ridge. In 1989, the City approved a development plan for the Ridge, thereby completing Brisbane's expansion. Mr. Speaker, in its brief history since incorporation, the City of Brisbane and its citizens have worked to balance expansion with protection of the natural beauty of the surrounding area. Brisbane's residents possess an independent spirit which has fueled this balanced expansion since the beginning of the 20th century. I am delighted and honored to represent the Brisbane and its extraordinary people in Congress, and I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the City of Brisbane on the 40th Anniversary of its incorporation.

Mr. TOM LANTOS

Mr. TOM LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on the night of May 10, 2001, Egyptian police arrested 52 Egyptian men because they frequented a gay night club. Since then, these men have been denied counsel, the have been tortured, they have had their reputations attacked, and they have been arraigned on trumped up charges of ``obscene behavior'' despite the fact that Egypt has no laws expressly criminalizing consensual homosexual behavior. Furthermore, if these men are convicted, under Egypt's Emergency State Security Court system, they will not have the right to appeal and may be sentenced up to nine years in prison. Mr. Speaker, by jailing, torturing, and denying a fair trial to people because of their real or perceived sexual orientation, the Egyptian government once again demonstrates its disregard of the human rights of its citizens, and its willingness to deny them the right of free association and due process. Egypt is clearly violating the human rights of these 52 men. Reports indicate that these men have been tortured with electroshocks, whipped while in prison, threatened with dogs, and they have been forced to undergo degrading and intrusive examinations designed to ``prove'' that they have been partners in homosexual relations. Mr. Speaker,. the Egyptian government has not only harmed these men physically, but has also sought to hurt their reputations. Their names together with identifying details, such as their professions and places of work were published, and they were publicly labeled as members of a ``Satanist'' organization. Mr. Speaker, astonishingly even anti-Semitism has been used to defame the detainees. For example, the pro-government press reported that one of the men ``confessed'' to being ``immersed in Judaism.'' The alleged leader of the so-called ``cult'' was shown in an evidently doctored photograph in one newspaper with an Israeli flag on his desk. The Egyptian government's treatment of these 52 men is indicative of a broad pattern of persecution towards religious and secular dissidents. Often these victims of persecution are members of Islamist political movements whom the government sees as a particular threat. In recent months, however, President Mubarak's government has undertaken a number of well publicized prosecutions aimed at secular dissidents. Most notably, the government imposed a seven-year sentence on Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a noted sociologist, for defaming the Egyptian State-a charge apparently prompted by his activism on behalf of religious tolerance and honest elections. Mr. Speaker, this repressive intolerance has extended to the international sphere. Egypt led the effort, at the recent United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS, to eliminate from the final document all references to vulnerable groups including men who have sex with men, sex workers, and IV-drug users. And Egypt also led the unsuccessful effort to deny the right to speak at the Special Session to the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. Local human rights groups in Egypt have been reluctant to act against many of these abuses--fearful their own precarious situation, facing a determinedly draconian government, will be worsened if they defend stigmatized groups. The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, a prominent non-governmental organization, recently fired one of its employees because he pressed them to speak out against the arrests of gay men. Lawyers have been reluctant to take up the case of these 52 men, fearing their own careers and even freedom could be endangered. The night to legal representation is a basic one, essential to the operations of a free and fair justice system. By creating a climate in which due process it is denied to gay men, the Egyptian government has undermined the basic human rights of all Egyptians. Mr. Speaker, this body must not ignore the Egyptian government's attempts to violate the human rights of individuals based on their real or perceived sexual orientation. The US government and the governments of all countries should stand up and be counted against Egypt's growing record of intolerance and inhumanity. Our distinguished colleague from Massachusetts Mr. Frank and 1, along with 34 of our colleagues are sending a letter to President Mubarak to express our very strong disapproval of the arrest of 52 men in Egypt on the basis of their real or perceived sexual orientation. Mr. Speaker, human rights are universal. These basic rights affirm our shared humanity; they should not be applied unequally according to prejudice and fear. We must not let the Egyptian government's rejection of basic human rights go unnoticed.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to a dedicated champion of Jewish affairs and public service, Mrs. Gitta Nagel of California, who will soon be receiving an Honorary Doctorate degree from Bar-Ilan University in Israel. Mrs. Nagel has continually strived to ensure a brighter, more cohesive future for the Jewish community by encouraging stronger academic programs and an everlasting remembrance of the Holocaust. As a young child living in Amsterdam during the Holocaust, Gitta saw first hand the destructive force and brutality of the Nazi regime, an experience that would continue to drive her throughout her life as a philanthropist. After the war, she emigrated to the United States where she attended UCLA and met her future husband, Jack Nagel. Through her efforts to promote a stronger Jewish community, Gitta Nagel has held leadership roles in numerous organizations including the United Jewish Communities, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, and Israel Bonds. In addition, she was a founding member of the Golda Meir Club, an organization that supports the State of Israel through her annual purchase of $5,000 worth of Israeli government bonds. Gitta also started a chapter of Bnei Akiva, a testament to her unwavering support for Zionism and the State of Israel. She has also shown a perpetual commitment to a prosperous future through her support of education. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that Gitta is an original founder of Yeshiva Yavneh of Los Angeles High Schools. She had lent her support to Bar-Ilan University through an endowment for immigrant students, doctoral fellowships, research grants, and numerous other academic programs. Mr. Speaker, in addition to Gitta Nagel's unwavering support for Jewish organizations, I would like to both emphasize and commend her work to preserve the memory of the Holocaust. Gitta has selflessly worked to secure a special place in history for Holocaust victims. She has given incredible amounts of time, energy and resources to make sure that the atrocity of the Holocaust is never forgotten. The Nagel's are founders of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., and are members of the Board of Trustees of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. In 1985, Gitta spoke before the Federation of Humanities in Stockholm, Sweden in a ceremony recognizing the 40th anniversary of the disapperance of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat responsible for saving the lives of over 100,000 Jews during the end of World War II, including my wife Annette and me. She was also a featured speaker before the Austrian Parliament during the celebration of the 90th birthday of Simon Wisenthal. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in Congress to join me in recognizing Gitta Nagel's contributions and commitments to Jewish affairs and community service worldwide. She has had a major impact in strengthening the ties of the Jewish people and ensuring that the Holocaust will never be repeated. I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Gitta Nagel for her very deserved honor.

Mr. LANTOS

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

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. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for bringing this important resolution to the body. I also want to thank my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his support. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, this resolution concerns a matter that unfortunately illustrates the singularly biased attitude and behavior that the United Nations and its constituent bodies and some of its personnel traditionally have shown towards our ally, the Democratic State of Israel. Mr. Speaker, on October 7 of last year, Hezbollah terrorists illegally crossed from Lebanon into Israel and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. Nearly 10 months later, Hezbollah has neither released information about the soldiers' conditions and whereabouts, nor has it allowed any third parties, even the International Red Cross to meet with them. Shortly after the kidnapping, Israel sources learned that U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon had shot a videotape that likely reveals the terrorists' identities.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I commend my friend from New York for his eloquent statement.

Mr. LANTOS

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

Mr. LANTOS. I am in favor of the resolution, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, as the founding Democratic chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, I rise in strong support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, the scourge of racism remains one of the most tragic aspects of international life today. Slavery, xenophobia, sexism, religious intolerance, hate crimes, racial profiling, we must renew our commitment and redouble our efforts to combat each of these manifestations of racism plaguing our globe today. Racism is at the root of countless international conflicts and it is a formidable barrier to international cooperation. It remains a stubborn and shameful stain on humanity. The U.N. Conference on Racism is the first time that the world will have come together to confront this scourge in a serious and systematic way. Among other critical issues the conference will confront the plight of millions of African people who have suffered from extreme pain, hardship and humiliation from the slave trade and its lingering effects. The conference intends to explore this issue in a comprehensive way discussing not only the transatlantic slave trade but also the Arab slave trade across the Indian Ocean and the Sahara Desert. It is imperative, Mr. Speaker, that the United States assume a leadership role in combatting racism worldwide. Our national experience with slavery and our commitment to civil rights compels us to take a lead in the broader worldwide struggle to eradicate racism. Our resolution makes clearly that the goals and objectives of this important conference deserve the strong support of the United States. If the conference adheres to its original purposes, U.S. participation clearly will contribute to its success. Tragically, Mr. Speaker, some are standing in the way of a genuine dialogue on these painful issues by seeking to hijack the U.N. Conference on Racism into a racist attack against specific states. A draft resolution sponsored by a number of Arab states tends to equate Zionism with racism and thereby singles out Israel for attack. Our resolution denounces this attempt to single out an individual state and to undermine the conference by using it as a platform for a hate-filled political agenda. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of our resolution and getting the U.N. Conference on Racism back on track. The work of combatting racial discrimination and reducing racial tensions worldwide is far too important to be sidetracked by disruptive and hateful political interests. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 212.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to commend my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. The current Export Administration Act will expire on August 20. On that day, the ability of the United States to implement dual use export controls will come to an end. The Senate has not yet acted on its legislation on this matter, and it is highly unlikely that it will do so before September. We are slated to mark up in the Committee on International Relations a version of the Senate bill later this week, but it will not go through the Committee on Armed Services, nor will it reach the House floor prior to September. The authority to maintain export controls, Mr. Speaker, can be continued under an executive order, as was done in recent years. But the lack of statutory authority will compromise the administration's ability to implement fully controls on militarily-useful goods and technology. Obviously, more time is needed to enact a new bill. Our temporary legislation will accomplish bridging this gap by extending statutory authority until November, 2001. This is the only responsible course of action, given the circumstances, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful remarks. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have two issues. The first is a technical one. I would ask the gentleman, is it not the case that in the report of the Committee on International Relations accompanying H.R. 1954 it was the intention of the Committee in the last line on page 8 that the report states ``Iran or Libya'' rather than just ``Libya''?

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1954. Mr. Speaker, let me first pay tribute to my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman); the bipartisan leadership of the House of Representatives, the Republican Leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), and the Democratic Leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt); my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); and over 250 colleagues who have seen fit to cosponsor this most important legislation. The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act imposes sanctions on foreign companies that invest in either Iran or Libya's energy sector. It, therefore, limits those two nation's oil profits, which each of those countries is using to bankroll weapons of mass destruction and terrorist activities. Now, the initial reasons for applying sanctions on Iran and Libya are as compelling today, Mr. Speaker, as they were 5 years ago when this body saw fit to impose these sanctions on these 2 dictatorial, terrorism-supporting nations. Iran continues to support terrorism. Iran continues to develop weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, and it is fanatically opposed to the peace process in the Middle East and to the very existence of the only democratic nation in the Middle East, our ally, the State of Israel. Let me say a word regarding Iran's record of terrorism, Mr. Speaker. In its most recent annual edition entitled Patterns of Global Terrorism, our Department of State describes Iran, ``as the most active State sponsor of terrorism on the face of this planet.'' Even since ILSA, the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, took effect, Iran has continued to assist terrorists in the murder of Americans. In announcing the indictments for the Khobar Towers tragedy, the 1996 bombing in Saudi Arabia that took the lives of 19 of our servicemen and servicewomen, Attorney General John Ashcroft said, ``Elements of the Iranian government inspired, supported, and supervised'' members of the Saudi Hezbollah, the group thought to be primarily responsible for the attack. The indictment makes clear Iran's deep involvement with the suspects themselves. Iran also provides aid and training and resources to the most blood- thirsty terrorists in the world, Hamas, Palestinian's Islamic Jihad, Lebanon's Hezbollah, all of which share totalitarian goals. Iran's patronage of these Middle Eastern terrorist groups has been demonstrated repeatedly by scholars, by journalists, and by our own judiciary. In 10 cases, Mr. Speaker, in recent years, U.S. courts have ruled in favor of U.S. citizens seeking damages from Iran as victims, or family members of victims, for Iran-backed terrorism. One of these cases involved a direct attack by a member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The other nine involved attacks by Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad which were proven to our courts' satisfaction to be dependent on Iranian training, money, and arms. Mr. Speaker, there is no sign of a let-up. According to the highly respected military affairs correspondent, writing just a few days ago on July 17, ``Iran has transferred hundreds of tons of weapons, ammunition and other materials to Hezbollah through Syria in recent days.'' This highly respected journalist writes, ``Iranian assistance via Hezbollah to Palestinian terrorist organizations that attack Israel is increasing and Hezbollah in turn is training Palestinian terrorists in Hezbollah bases in Lebanon's Beka'a Valley.'' The list of murderous and terrorist actions carried out by Iranian- backed terrorists is endless. Sixty-three people killed, including 17 Americans, in the April, 1983 U.S. embassy bombing in Beirut. Mr. Speaker, 241 U.S. Marines killed in the barracks bombing in October 1983. I might mention parenthetically some of us visited with those Marines just days before they lost their lives because of Iranian- supported terrorism. Mr. Speaker, 29 were killed in the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. Sixty-six innocent men, women and children were killed in the 1994 bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires. I have not even begun to exhaust the most infamous incidents. What about all the kidnapping, torture, and murders that are the daily fare of these groups, the casual violence that barely makes the headlines. All of this, Mr. Speaker, has occurred with active support of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This disgrace has been going on for more than 2 decades now. It is quite a tradition that Iran has established, and the very least we can do is answer. That is what ILSA, the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, does. It is our response to murder, our attempt to dry up some of the monies that nourishes this terrorist monster. Last year, Mr. Speaker, Iran successfully tested an 800-mile range missile capable of delivering these catastrophic weapons of mass destruction against its neighbors, including potentially Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel. Now, Iran recently held an election for President and the winner was the incumbent, Mr. Khatami, the most reform-oriented of the candidates that the clinical establishment allowed to run. As my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, one cannot just run for office in Iran. One must have the good housekeeping seal of approval of the ruling Ayatollah. The President in Iran is far less powerful than Iran's chief clerical official, the supreme leader. Real control in that country is in the hands of the clergy. The security organizations, the judiciary, the media, and the military are all under the control of the Ayatollah. Now, I have spoken mainly of Iran, but there is a lot to be said of Libya. This country, which for so long has been run in a dictatorial fashion, still refuses to accept responsibility for the downing of Pan Am 103 and refuses to provide compensation for the families of all those innocent victims. I would like to say a word, Mr. Speaker, about the effectiveness of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. Some argue that ILSA has not had an impact on the Iranian economy. That, Mr. Speaker, is demonstrably false. Even Iranian officials, including the President of Iran, have acknowledged that our legislation has had an enormous economic impact. In a 1998 report to the United Nations, Iran complained that ILSA had caused ``disruption of its economy, decline in its gross national product, and contributed significantly to the reduction of international investment in oil projects and cancellation of some contracts.'' That is precisely what we are after. As one obvious example of ILSA's impact, I would like to point to the energy resources of the Caspian Sea. For several years now, Mr. Speaker, Iran, Russia, and Turkey have been vying to host the main export pipeline for newly discovered oil and gas in Azerbaijan. Several of the international energy companies involved in the region prefer to pipe their product through Iran to the Persian Gulf. Economically and geographically, clearly, that would be the way to go. The reason they have chosen not the Iranian route is our legislation. Amoco, Exxon, and others do not want to risk the sanctions imposed by this body. Recently, BP Amoco agreed to export Azerbaijani gas through Turkey, a member of NATO, rather than Iran. No major pipeline for Azerbaijani oil has been built yet, but when it is, it will go through Turkey and not Iran, all of that thanks to our legislation. I am very proud of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that our Committee on International Relations, with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 41 to 3, saw fit to expand our legislation for an additional 5 years. The Bush administration attempted to cut the length of time of this extension to 2 years, and overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan basis, our committee rejected the Bush administration's proposal, as will this House, tomorrow morning when we vote on this matter. This piece of legislation is one of the most important items we will pass during the current Congress directly related to our national security. I want to again thank all of my colleagues who have worked on this in the various committees where this legislation has been carefully considered. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the previous speaker for his powerful and eloquent statement. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the distinguished senior ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), from the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield my remaining time, 2 minutes, to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, and I hope the entire House adopts it. Trafficking is a huge problem, with some 3 million women and children being trafficked into sexual slavery and forced labor each year, with as many as 50,000 being trafficked into the United States each year. Last year, Congress addressed this problem by passing the landmark Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, but that act only authorized funding through fiscal year 2002. Now, we need to carry through with the commitments made in this Act. We need to fully fund the international programs related to these critical programs. I understand that in FY2000, more than $14 million dollars may have been spent to combat trafficking, and that there was some increase in these programs for FY2001. Fully funding last year's authorization of $30 million is a modest increase over last year in dollar terms, to reach out to tens of millions of potential victims, to help millions of actual victims, and to help prevent trafficking by increasing the capacity of foreign governments to address this growing crisis. The U.S. must do its share on trafficking. But so do foreign governments. Last year, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2001 provided that if countries did not meet certain minimum standards regarding trafficking in persons, U.S. non-humanitarian, non-trade foreign assistance would be cut off. In the Administration's first annual report on trafficking in persons, the State Department reported that 23 countries did not meet these standards, including many of our friends around the world. We have a duty to help those countries reach their minimum standards, as well as helping the million of victims around the world. Some may call this amendment an earmark and argue against it. However, this amendment gives flexibility to the Administration by allowing the funding for trafficking to be drawn from a number of accounts. We do not intend, however that funds be used for purposes other than those that were appropriated. For example, funds from the Migration and Refugee Account are to be used for reintegration and resettlement of trafficking victims into their home countries, as is being done today. In this connection, I note that I hope the Chairman and Ranking Member will make efforts to make further increases to the MRA account as the legislation moves forward. Mr. Chairman, $30 million is not much money when you look at the magnitude of this problem, and we have given sufficient flexibility to allow the Administration to properly administer this provision. I ask that all members support the amendment.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Traficant. I believe that this ill-conceived amendment will cause irreparable damage to U.S.-Russian relations at time when we must intensify our engagement with Russian civil society. Cutting all aid to Russia, as the Traficant amendment requires, would undercut our efforts to strengthen the forces of democracy in Russia and would therefore undermine U.S. national security interests. I am just as concerned as my colleagues about the Russian government's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to Iran, its cozy relations with Iraq, and its mistreatment of American citizens who have been falsely accused of spying. And I am equally concerned about the Russian leadership's recent crackdown on independent media outlets, its human rights violations in Chechnya, its failure to curb rampant corruption, and its lack of a transparent judicial system. However, I strongly believe that the only way the United States can effectively address these issues is to stay engaged with Russian civil society. Make no mistake--promoting a democratic Russia is in our national security interests. I believe that the appropriators did a commendable job in addressing the authoritarian actions of the Russian government without damaging the core programs which benefit the Russian people and advance our national security interests. This bill already withholds U.S. assistance to the Russian government if its proliferation to Iran continues. I strongly support this provision. Rightfully, the bill does not put the same restriction on U.S. assistance to Russia grassroots civil society, including non- governmental organizations and independent media. The bill also specifically exempts assistance to combat infectious diseases; to promote child survival; to strengthen non-proliferation activities; to support progressive regional and municipal governments; to expand exchanges and partnerships; and to provide judicial training. These initiatives--critical to the development of Russian civil society-- deserve our continued support. Without a viable civil society, Russia cannot achieve true economic prosperity--nor will it cease to be a potential security threat to the United States. This is why earlier this year I introduced the Russia Democracy Act to enhance our democracy, good governance and anti- corruption efforts. Enhancing our effort with non governmental organizations is the right path, not this misguided amendment. The bill under consideration is consistent with the Russia Democracy Act; the Traficant amendment clearly is not. Millions of Russian citizens desire to become part of the West culturally, policitally, and in many other senses. These forces need to be strengthened. In the final analysis, a democratic Russia, respecting human rights and observing international norms of peaceful behavior, is squarely in U.S. national security interests. Ceasing all aid to Russia, as the Traficant amendment requires, would delay the realization of this vision for Russia. I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in tribute to an outstanding American, the late Mr. Warren C. Chao who led a life of service, great accomplishment and ultimate achievement of the American dream. Mr. Chao was born into meager circumstances during a time of great turmoil in Manchuria, China, on March 16, 1914. Even as a young man, he was deeply committed to receiving an education and left his family to attend school in Beijing at the age of 15. During the Japanese occupation, Mr. Chao was unable to return to his home. When he was at last able to return, Mr. Chao was distressed to learn that his father had been tortured and arrested by the Japanese army and that his family had been forced to sell their farm to buy his father's freedom, leaving them indigent. Also after returning to his native Manchuria, Mr. Chao completed his undergraduate work in Civil Engineering. For five years after his graduation, Mr. Chao committed himself to public service by building agricultural infrastructure for Chinese farmers. During this time he supervised various flood management projects in China, including the Yellow River project, which is, world renowned as one of the most challenging water projects ever undertaken by man. Mr. Speaker, in 1948, during the Chinese Civil War, Mr. Chao worked on water conservation projects in Manchuria for the Nationalist government. A staunch anti-communist, he was forced to escape on foot, disguised as a peasant, to rejoin his wife who had previously left Manchuria for the safety of Beijing. Unfortunately, Mr. Chao's parents and extended family were unable to join him. After a brief stay in Beijing, Mr. Chao and his wife traveled to Taiwan, not knowing that they would not see their homeland again for more than 40 years. Once in Taiwan, Mr. Chao got a job with the Taiwan Sugar Company as a Civil Engineer. During the eleven years he was employed by the Taiwan Sugar Company, he was recognized as a pioneer in developing western Taiwan's coastal agricultural areas. After leaving the Taiwan Sugar Company, Mr. Chao was employed by the National Taiwan Power Company as the Senior Hydraulic Engineer, and was instrumental in building numerous large hydraulic dams and power stations. Due to his technical and supervisory expertise, he was appointed to be the Irrigation Engineer for the Sino-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, a venture supported by the United States Agency for International Development. Mr. Speaker, at the age of 55, Mr. Chao immigrated to the United States in pursuit of a better life for his family. He moved to San Francisco on August 8, 1970. His lack of skill in the English language hindered Mr. Chao professionally, but he persevered, performing hard physical labor to support his family. Like many Americans, Mr. Chao succeeded despite tremendous odds against him. He worked hard to get ahead and attended graduate school in civil engineering at the University of California at Davis, and environmental engineering at the University of California at San Francisco. He returned to engineering at the Naval Supplies Center in Alameda where he served as a Civil Engineer for 15 years, retiring at the age of 78, after spending his entire professional life using his technical knowledge to benefit others. Mr. Speaker, sadly Mr. Chao passed away on August 14, 1999. His family described his passing in peace and comfort and recalled these selfless words from his final days: ``This road is getting too long and hard and I don't want to make it too hard for you.'' I will close with the words of Mr. Chao's son Michael, who paid the greatest tribute a child can to a parent by memorializing his father as a man of ``accomplishment, sacrifice for his family, service to his country and unyielding spirit and enthusiasm for education.'' I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Mr. Chao for a life well lived, for the legacy of public service, for his commitment his family in America. I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Warren Chao.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and I want to thank my colleagues from the International Relations Committee--Mr. Crowley and Mr. Royce--as well as Mr. McDermott, the co- chair of the India Caucus for introducing this amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. This amendment would add $10 million to the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance at USAID to fund a disaster preparedness and prevention program in South Asia. Mr. Chairman, we have seen over the last two years a series of natural disasters that have wreaked havoc in the countries of South Asia--everything from the droughts, cyclones and floods that regularly afflict the subcontinent to the devastating earthquake that hit India and Pakistan earlier this year. The South Asia region is one of the most disaster prone parts of the world has some of the poorest and most densely populated countries. Experts believe that there is a very high likelihood that an earthquake similar to the Bhuj earthquake will strike Nepal within the decade. Pakistan and Afghanistan are even now experiencing a severe drought that is causing thousands to flee their homes and abandon their farms. And yet we have first hand experience in how effective response and early warning systems can save lives and minimize destruction from natural disasters. Our Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established a worldwide reputation for fast and effective disaster response. When disaster strikes in America, FEMA works with state and local governments, non-governmental organizations like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, military and police authorities, and a myriad other actors to coordinate an effective disaster response. Such capacity is clearly needed in South Asia. By working with each of these countries individually and collectively, OFDA can help these countries improve their response capacity and reduce the devastation and loss of life that inevitably follow natural disasters in South Asia. Furthermore, by helping to establish greater regional cooperation in disaster management will help the countries of South Asia access and deploy much needed assets in a more cost effective way and could lead to greater cooperation in other areas. Mr. Chairman, clearly all of the countries of South Asia could benefit enormously from better emergency preparedness and mitigation programs. However, USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) currently has a lone representative based in Kathmandu, Nepal who is charged with covering the whole region. An increase to OFDA's funding would allow that representative to expand and enhance programs in the region to help these nations develop the needed programs. These programs will help save thousands of lives and will ultimately save U.S. taxpayer money over the long run as the countries of South Asia improve and build their own disaster management and response capacity, thereby reducing their need for American assistance when disaster strikes--as it inevitably will. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.