José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the concurrent resolution honoring the Tuskegee Airmen for their bravery in fighting for our freedom in World War II, and for their contribution to creating an integrated U.S. Air Force. The Tuskegee Airmen were the first African Americans to be trained by the U.S. Military to be pilots in the U.S. Army Air Corps. Due to the rigid pattern of racial segregation that prevailed in the United States during World War II, Black military aviators were forced to serve in segregated units and not allowed to train or fight alongside their white countrymen. Despite initial obstacles, 445 went oversees as combat pilots in the Europe, North Africa and the Mediterranean. Flying ``bomber escort'' and ground attack missions on 15,533 sorties and 1578 missions between May, 1943 and June 9, 1945, the Tuskegee Airmen compiled the enviable Air Force record wherein none of the bombers they escorted was lost to enemy fighters, they destroyed 251 enemy aircraft and won more than 850 medals. Their record was not withont losses, however, with 32 POWs and 66 Tuskegee Airmen killed in action. Mr. Speaker, we all remember President Kennedy's famous call to all Americans: ``Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.'' Some 20 years earlier this group of brave soldiers went above and beyond that call in fighting for a country that at the time refused to fight for them. Their heroism on the battlefield not only helped to defeat oppression in Europe but also helped to push their own nation to confront its crimes of oppression. The Tuskegee airmen also known as the ``Red Tails'', because of the bright red spinners and tails they painted on their planes, are national heroes and therefore deserve the thanks and gratitude of this nation. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Tuskegee Airmen.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, l rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Shirley Rodriguez Remeneski, an incredible woman who has spent most of her life serving the needs of others. On Thursday, January 27, 2004, Ms. Remeneski will celebrate her retirement in the City of New York. Since she started her career in 1966, Ms. Remeneski has held various leadership positions in the government and non-profit worlds. Currently she serves as Senior Vice President of the Empire State Development's Economic Revitalization Division. In this capacity she oversees economic development for distressed communities, including projects and programs to stimulate growth and development throughout New York State. Her efforts have helped to create permanent jobs and sustainable business enterprises. Ms. Remeneski's list of achievements is long and impressive. She began her career in 1966 by establishing and directing the first Social Services Unit in the Bronx Borough President's office. Some of the more influential positions Ms. Remeneski has held include district administrator for Congressman Badillo, where she managed the New York City office and coordinated activities with the Congressman's Washington staff. In 1978 she served as Assistant Deputy Mayor of New York City where she worked on intergovernmental relations and community development issues in the South Bronx, Harlem and other areas of the city. And in 1986 she served as Executive Director of the NYS Governor's Office for Hispanic Affairs. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that Ms. Remeneski's service to the people of New York has not gone unnoticed. She has received numerous awards and commendations from a host of organizations, including the Association of Hispanic Mental Health Professionals, Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer, the NYC Housing Authority's Society of Hispanic Employees, the NYS-Hispanic Political Coalition Employees and many others. Ms. Remeneski has worked tirelessly to help improve the lives of people throughout New York. As a result of her unyielding dedication and hard work over the past four decades, countless New Yorkers enjoy a better life. In honor of her retirement, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Ms. Shirley Rodriguez Remeneski.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Jack Halpern, a highly accomplished Jewish American who will be honored on January 27, 2005, at the Annual Northeast Regional Tribute of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Jack, a resident of Manhattan, lives with his wife Lieba and their two wonderful children. He is a managing member of Atlantic Realty, which develops residential and commercial real estate in New Jersey, New York and Israel. In addition to his duties with Atlantic Realty, Jack somehow finds the time to work as an activist. Following in the footsteps of his father Sam, who founded the family business after surviving the Holocaust, Jack has become an active supporter of numerous Jewish causes. As a member of AIPAC's National Executive Committee, Jack has been a leader in strengthening ties between the U.S. and Israel for many years. In 2002, Jack founded the Energy Independence Task Force at the American Jewish Congress, where he currently serves on the Governing Council and Executive Committee. This important task force continues to work for fuel efficiency standards in trucks and SUVs. In addition they have met with many key Congressional and Administration officials in order to deliver the message that a long-term national energy policy focusing on reducing the United States' dependency on Middle East oil is a national security imperative. Jack's long-time associations also include State of Israel Bonds, the Jewish Community Center of Manhattan, the Holocaust Resource Foundation, the Technion Institute and the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. Mr. Speaker, Jack Halpern is a model American citizen worthy of the award which will be bestowed upon him. His efforts have not only helped to strengthen the two countries he cares most deeply for (America and Israel) but have also helped to strengthen their special relationship. For his continued service on AIPAC's Executive Committee and his work on improving U.S.-Israeli relations, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Mr. Jack Halpern.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a woman who has dedicated her life to serving the people of her community. Mrs. Margarita Hunt-Tejada, District Manager for Community Board #4 in the Bronx, NY will be retiring after 40 years of service. In her role as District Manager for Community Board #4, Mrs. Hunt- Tejada oversees the delivery of city services to over 140,000 people. She assists in the development of long range strategies as well as plans for their implementation. Under her strong leadership many of the programs and projects advocated by the board are coming to fruition, such as the Bronx Community Court House, the High School for Law, Government and Justice and the East 153rd Street Bridge. In addition, Mrs. Hunt-Tejada can take great pride in the fact that she has helped to get the Bronx Terminal Market Project underway. This project will provide for a large scale shopping mall, a hotel and a much sought after conference center. More importantly, it will create hundreds of new jobs for Bronx community residents. Prior to her role as District Manager for Bronx Community Board #4, Mrs. Hunt-Tejada served the people of the Bronx in various other leadership positions, including Director of Community Affairs at the Bethel Christian Church, Assistant Office Manager at M. Singer and Sons, located at the Bronx Terminal Market, and Associate District Manager for Bronx Community Board #4. Believing that there can be no greater vocation than caring for and serving the needs of others, Mrs. Hunt-Tejada has worked tirelessly to help improve the lives of people throughout the Bronx. As a result of her unyielding dedication and hard work over the past four decades, hundreds of thousands of people in her community have been able to enjoy a higher standard of living. Mr. Speaker, for her many years of outstanding service, I ask that my colleagues join me in paying tribute to this remarkable woman.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to say goodbye to dear friends, to those who have given so much and so unselfishly to their communities and to our nation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory and tribute to Mr. William M. Burke, who passed away this past Sunday, November 14, 2004 after a difficult and courageous battle the last year and a half. Mr. Burke was Founder and President of the Washington Center for Internships and Academic Seminars, TWC, established in 1975 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational organization that allows college students from all around the country and the world to have access to academic internships in Washington, D.C. I witnessed first hand the valuable services Mr. Burke and TWC provide to our country through the CORDOVA program they administer. Founded in 1995, the CORDOVA Congressional Internship Program promotes the educational development of Puerto Rico's college students, offering an incomparable 15-week semester experience as interns in Washington, D.C. and working primarily with congressional offices. I can proudly say that every semester. TWC provides my office with quality interns from the CORDOVA program. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Burke was an indefatigable leader, brimming with vision and ideals--a mentor, a teacher, a friend, and, most importantly, the source of inspiration to countless young leaders. The institution that he built and nurtured has earned a lasting and enduring place in experiential education. Mr. Burke tirelessly championed the involvement of members of Congress and the executive branch, corporate CEOs, foreign dignitaries, media luminaries, leaders in philanthropy, nonprofit leaders, state legislators, and college and university presidents. Mr. Speaker, his legacy of service to others and his valuable contributions in all sectors of society, with over 30,000 alumni of The Washington Center internship program who today are leaders in their own right, will be sorely missed but his legacy lives on. Mr. Burke was a native of Norwood, Massachusetts. He earned a Master's degree in Education from the University of Massachusetts, a Bachelor of Science in Management from American International College in Springfield, Massachusetts, and an Associate's degree in Accounting from Norwalk Community College, Norwalk, Connecticut. He also received an honorary Doctorate of Law from Richard Stockton State College. Bill always stayed close to the people he loved: his family, friends, and his community. In the past year and a half, he fought his terminal illness with the same courage and dignity that exemplified his life. He is survived by his wife, Sheila, and two children, Barry and Reavey. To Bill's family, colleagues, friends, and the thousands of former students who were touched by his life and example, I would like to extend my deepest sympathy in this trying time. Mr. Speaker I ask my colleagues to join me and all who had the privilege of knowing William M. Burke in paying tribute to him for serving his community, his state and his nation with the courage, generosity and dignity of great men of history.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to once again acknowledge the gifted composer and musician Francesc de Paula Soler. On November 8, 2004 he performed at the Library of Congress in an event sponsored by the Library's Hispanic Division. This special event was part of the celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month, which allows us to acknowledge our roots and celebrate the accomplishments of Hispanic-Americans in this great nation. Mr. Soler grew up in Spain and began classical guitar lessons at the age of 6. Under the tutelage of two legendary guitarists, Andres Segovia and Narciso Yepes, he received rigorous and intensive training with in classical guitar and has truly become a legend in his own right. Mr. Soler has played music halls and auditoriums throughout the United States and Europe, mesmerizing his audiences and earning the nickname ``The Poet of the Guitar.'' Mr. Speaker, Mr. Soler has graced us with his presence before, playing concerts at the Library of Congress that have both entertained us and lifted our spirits. I was very pleased that he returned to play for us this year and I hope he will continue to bless us with his amazing performances in the years to come. I ask that my colleagues once again join me in paying tribute to Mr. Francesc de Paula Soler.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, October 12, 2004, marks the 65th anniversary of the Hispanic Division of the Library of Congress. Since 1939, the Hispanic Division has been systematically collecting and acquiring Luso-Hispanic materials. Today, with more than 11 million items, it has one of the most extensive collections in the world on the history and culture of Latin America, Iberia, and the Caribbean. Specialists in the Hispanic Reading Room help patrons from all over the United States, and indeed the world, find books and other materials from the Library's collections. The website (www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/) for the Hispanic Reading Room is tri-lingual, in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. This website is a wonderful resource for young students seeking to learn more about Hispanic culture, providing everything from manuscripts to films. The Hispanic Division also compiles a number of widely used books and reference tools. The pioneering work, Hispanic Americans in Congress, 1822-1995, chronicles the distinguished personal histories of Hispanic members of Congress through the years. I am proud to have contributed to the book's compilation and publishing as the Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus during the 103rd Congress. The Hispanic Division has also taken a huge step towards cataloguing academic literature dealing with Latin American issues through the annual, annotated bibliography entitled the Handbook of Latin American Studies, published by the University of Texas Press. All volumes of this publication are available online at Hispanic Reading Room website, and they receive more than 100,000 hits per month. In addition, the Division has been recording our great works of Hispanic literature for the Archive of Hispanic Literature on Tape. More than 670 Latin American and Hispanic authors have been recorded so far, including Luis Rafael Sanchez, Rosario Ferre, Rene Marques, Ana Castillo, and Rudolfo Anaya. Numerous other projects also chronicle the history of Hispanics in America. A project initiated by Dr. James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, illustrates the presence of Spain in North America from the 1500s to 1821. This project, ``The United States, Spain and the American Frontier: Historias Paralelas'' is designed specifically for school children, college age students and scholars to help them better navigate the Hispanic Division's rare books, manuscripts and maps. Mr. Speaker, the Hispanic Division of the Library of Congress is a wonderful resource that answers Hispanic-Americans' questions about their personal histories and helps them find information about current issues facing Hispanic-Americans today. For students and academics, the Hispanic Division provides valuable insight into the creativity and values of Hispanics in Latin America, Iberia, and the Caribbean. The Hispanic Division serves as a bridge from the past to the present, helping Hispanic-Americans to understand where they came from, and where they can expect to go in the years to come. I ask that my colleagues join me in celebrating the good work that the Hispanic Division has done over the past 65 years, and in wishing them continued success in the years to come.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge one of the largest employers in my district, Urban Health Plan, Inc., as they celebrate their 30th anniversary. UHP has worked for three decades now to make health care more accessible to residents of the South Bronx. Urban Health Plan began as the vision of Dr. Richard Izquierdo, who, as a private practitioner in the South Bronx, saw the lack of primary health services that the community provided to its residents. He decided to form a community health center, and in 1968, the San Juan Health Center was born. Urban Health Plan was created out of the San Juan Health Center to offer expanded services and increase outreach into the local community. It has done just that, by providing affordable, reliable care to residents of the South Bronx. UHP offers significant primary and specialty care, in addition to numerous outreach and education programs. Because many area residents do not speak English as a first language, most of the staff is bi-lingual. Today, Urban Health Plan, Inc. has expanded to include three health centers, six local school locations, homeless shelters, and adult treatment programs under the leadership of President and CEO Paloma Hernandez. Mr. Speaker, in an area where hospital services and preventative medicine are sorely needed, Urban Health Plan, Inc. fills an important need for residents of my district. They have helped thousands of Bronx residents address their health care needs without mortgaging their futures. I am glad to count organizations such as Urban Health Plan, Inc. as allies in the effort to improve the neighborhoods and communities of the Bronx, and I salute Urban Health Plan, Inc. for their dedication to the residents of the South Bronx. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Urban Health Plan, Inc. on their 30th anniversary, and on wishing them continued success in the years to come.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a committed community activist and advocate Minister Bruce Rivera, a resident of my district who has been committed to improving the community in which he was born and raised, will soon be celebrating his ordination in the United Church of Christ. Minister Rivera was born and raised in the South Bronx. He attended the public school system in the city of New York, and after graduation, he joined the United States Air Force. He served his nation with distinction, and earned both the Purple Heart and the Cross of Gallantry for his actions during the conflict in Beirut. After five years in the armed services, Minister Rivera returned to the community in which he was raised. He immediately transferred that same tenacity and dedication to country to his efforts in the local community, becoming committed to improving the South Bronx. He founded South Bronx Churches, an ecumenical organization that has built more than 800 homes in the South Bronx. He also founded the Boston Road Association for Community Empowerment, which serves the interests of more than 700 families in the Morrisania section of the Bronx. He continues to keep himself involved in the community and the city, as a member of the local community planning board, the Chaplain for the 42nd Police Precinct Community Council, and as a Management Analyst at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Since becoming licensed in the Gospel ministry, Minister Rivera has worked on a dizzying array of ecumenical projects. He ministers to inmates at Rikers Island and the Downstate Correctional Custody Facility. His work with police officers after the events of September 11th recently won him recognition from both the City Council and the NYPD. Mr. Speaker, Minister Rivera has typified the ideals of dedication and compassion. For twenty years, he has worked to improve the lives of countless individuals in the South Bronx. Minister Rivera has been selfless of his time and his talents, and the Bronx is better for it. Minister Rivera could not have accomplished all of these things without the love and support of his wife, Maria, and his son Bruce Anthony. Mr. Speaker, Minister Bruce Rivera is a fine example of a great community leader and a person dedicated through his faith to helping others. I am grateful to have such a deeply committed person doing his good work in my district. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring his past achievement and in anticipating many great things to come.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Rosabel Simmons, an outstanding individual who has devoted her life to her family and to serving the community. Mrs. Simmons will be celebrating her 100th birthday in the company of her family and friends on Thursday, in my congressional district in the Bronx. Rosabel Simmons, known as Rose, was born on September 30, 1904, to York and Malsie Simmons on Wadmalaw Island, South Carolina. She was the youngest of seven children and received her formal education on the Island. She married John Simmons of Edisto Island, South Carolina, and they raised a total of nine children. Rose followed John to New York with two of their children in 1925. They resided at various locations in Harlem and the Bronx until they finally settled in Bronx County. She worked in the hotel industry and was a union member. After her retirement, she opened a retail establishment that she owned with her husband on Union Avenue in the Bronx. Rose is a strong advocate of education and sent all of her children to local public schools from elementary school through college. Never one to sit on the sidelines when it came to her children and grandchildren, Rose converted from the Methodist Church to the Catholic Church to support her grandchildren when they entered the Catholic school system. She always insisted on raising the bar of excellence and held each of her children and grandchildren to the same high standard. This affectionate, tenacious woman serves as the matriarch of her family. She is frequently consulted by her children, grandchildren and great grandchildren for advice, guidance and reassurance. Rose attributes her longevity to her father's genes; York Simmons lived to be 114 years of age, and one of her older sisters, Jestine Simmons Mathews, lived to be 110 years of age. Both resided in Charleston, South Carolina. Her motto is very simple: When you reach the tender age of 100 years, life becomes very simple. Good food, a good John Wayne or Clint Eastwood movie and continuing civic responsibility. For her birthday gift she asked ``everyone eligible to vote to make it to their polling station and vote.'' Rose has seen many elections and believes voting is a right which we must exercise, if we are to maintain the privilege, a privilege she is determined will pass on to her great, great grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that one of Rose's granddaughters, Mrs. Cheryl Simmons-Oliver, is my district office director and has worked for me for more than 10 years. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me and the family of Mrs. Rosabel Simmons in wishing her a very happy 100th birthday.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States that would enshrine discrimination in one of our Nation's founding documents and insinuate the Federal government into an area of law and policy that has traditionally been left to the States. Since the Bill of Rights was adopted, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times. That demonstrates the profoundly conservative approach the American people and their representatives in Congress have taken to changing the Constitution. Polls show that that approach continues today. Even among those who oppose gay marriage, a majority oppose using a constitutional amendment to ban it. For my part, I believe that a committed couple, regardless of gender, should have the right to participate in a state-recognized marriage or civil union and to enjoy the rights and responsibilities conveyed by that legal relationship. It is in our society's interest that committed couples, whether in ``traditional'' or same-sex unions, be not only allowed but encouraged to form households, have families, and contribute to the health and stability of their neighborhoods and communities. What religious bodies choose to recognize, sanction, or bless as marriage should be entirely up to them. There are much more important issues we could be spending this time on. The American people have much higher priorities than this--the misguided effort to bring democracy to Iraq; the faltering economy; the loss of good jobs; the half-hearted, underfunded war on terrorism; the high price of gas; the millions of Americans without health insurance; and so on. Mr. Speaker, this waste of an afternoon in an effort to pollute our Constitution with language requiring discrimination against a particular group of people, in violation of basic principles of federalism, is just wrong, and I urge my colleagues to show they share my disdain for this charade by voting ``no.''

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an important issue of justice for Holocaust survivors: the saga of the Hungarian Gold Train, and the role played by the United States government. As the Presidential Advisory Committee on Holocaust Assets, PCHA, first revealed in full in 1999, this was a dark mark on the otherwise heroic and exemplary role played by the United States in the treatment of Holocaust survivors. In 1944, the Nazis systematically confiscated the property of Hungary's Jews. A train loaded with stolen property was turned over to U.S. Army after World War II ended. Our policy and law required us to return that property to its rightful owners. Instead, the United States refused to return the property to Hungary--despite the pleas of Holocaust survivors. Worse, our government covered up the matter for half a century. As the PCHA concluded, the Gold Train is ``an example of an egregious failure of the United States to follow its own policy regarding restitution of Holocaust victims' property after World War II.'' As members of this House are well aware, the United States has been at the forefront of recent worldwide efforts to assure restitution and historic justice for Holocaust survivors. When other nations or their corporations have tried to use legalistic defenses, such as sovereign immunity or statutes of limitations, we have said forthrightly that there is a moral as well as a legal obligation to make historic amends. Sadly, in dealing with the claims of the Hungarian Holocaust survivors, our own government has taken the very approach we have decried elsewhere. The survivors filed suit in federal court in Miami in 2001 seeking an accounting and restitution. The Justice Department has litigated this case in a manner that appears to ignore its moral dimensions, and that appears to contradict our bipartisan national policy on Holocaust restitution. It has sought to have the case thrown out of court--an effort rejected by Judge Patricia Seitz. It has insisted on taking grueling in-person depositions from dozens of elderly survivors. It only filed a substantive response to the lawsuit three years later. In that response, it chided the survivors themselves for lacking the ``due diligence'' to learn about the Gold Train, despite the fact that the government itself covered up the story and kept documents classified for decades! This sort of foot-dragging only adds insult to injury. The Department of Justice has a duty, in my view, not only to vigorously uphold the law, but also to pursue justice and seek fair restitution for those victims who lost property on the Gold Train. The report accompanying the Commerce, Justice and State Appropriations bill makes clear the Appropriations Committee's concern over this issue. Report language indicates that the Committee is watching this case carefully. As I told Deputy Attorney General Comey when he testified before the Subcommittee in March, I have heard a great deal about this from Holocaust survivors. I feel very strongly that these individuals should not be dragged through further time- consuming litigation and court proceedings. Mr. Speaker, I believe the judge's order that the Justice Department mediate the case with the survivors is a very positive development. The parties have agreed that Fred Fielding, the former White House counsel to President Reagan and currently a member of the Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States, the 9/11 Commission, will conduct the mediation. I will monitor this process, and work with Mr. Fielding as necessary to see that justice is done. As the report indicates, it is important that the Justice Department treat this mediation seriously and at last resolve this matter in a way that is fair, compassionate, and prompt. I believe that the most authoritative account of this case--and of the United States government's moral duty to compensate these survivors--was recently written by the Hon. Stuart E. Eizenstat. Ambassador Eizenstat was the Special Representative on Holocaust Restitution Issues during his time as Under Secretary of State and Deputy Treasury Secretary during the 1990s. He sat on the PCHA and is respected worldwide for his balanced leadership on this issue. He recently wrote an article in the Forward, the respected Jewish newspaper. I strongly agree with the thrust of this article, and I would like to enter it into the record at the end of this statement. Mr. Speaker, simply put, justice delayed is justice denied. These Holocaust survivors came to the United States to build new lives, and our government has wrongly withheld the compensation which could have helped in that process. They have been waiting for almost sixty years for justice. They should not have to wait any longer. [From the Forward, June 17, 2004] Integrity of the Restitution Process Rests on Single Standard of Justice (By Stuart Eizenstat) During the last decade, Swiss, German, Austrian and French companies and their governments paid some $8 billion to Jewish and non-Jewish victims of the Third Reich, disgorged thousands of dormant bank accounts, finally honored prewar insurance policies and returned confiscated property and artwork. The Europeans paid reparations for their conduct during World War II, and restituted property even though their legal liability more than half a century later stood on shaky grounds. They did so in significant part because the American government insisted that they had a moral and historical responsibility to those they wronged. Now, however, the shoe is on the other foot in the ``Hungarian Gold Train'' case. The American government is being sued by Jewish survivors for alleged improper handling of assets stolen from them by the pro-Nazi regime in Hungary. Faced with righting what may be America's historical wrong, the Justice Department has forgotten our own message to the world, and is relying on strict legal arguments to escape responsibility. This is the wrong approach and should be corrected immediately, lest we lose the moral high ground that was indispensable to achieving our agreements--and that remains essential today to ensure our agreements are honored and that other human rights violations are taken seriously. The U.S. Army was not only heroic in winning World War II, but also had an enviable postwar record in recovering Nazi- looted property. Unlike the Soviet Union, which took away valuable paintings and cultural property as war booty, the American government never tried to enrich itself as the victorious power. In accordance with international legal principles and American policy, art and cultural property was returned to the countries from which it had been taken. In turn, those countries were expected to return the property to the citizens from whom it had been confiscated. But in regard to the Hungarian Gold Train, the American government followed a starkly different policy. The train, totaling 24 rail cars and holding countless Hungarian Jews' valuables that had been confiscated by the pro-Nazi Hungarian government, was seized by the U.S. Army in Austria in mid-May 1945, just after the war had ended. Despite constant appeals for years by the post-war Hungarian government and the official Hungarian Jewish organizations to return the property--even to simply permit an examination of the valuables--the American government refused. Even the American Legation to Hungary questioned Washington's refusal. Instead, the U.S. Army declared the Gold Train assets ``enemy property'' unidentifiable as to individual ownership and national origin, making restitution infeasible. Instead of returning the property to the Hungarian government, as the French army did with other Jewish assets it seized after the war, some senior American military officers requisitioned the property to furnish their apartments in Austria. Other items, such as watches, alarm clocks and cameras, were sold through Army Exchange stores in Austria. More than 1,100 paintings, some with impressive credentials, were transferred by the U.S. Army to the Austrian government. A substantial amount of property was sold for auction in New York, with proceeds transferred to the International Refugee Organization to benefit Holocaust survivors. A small number of items simply were stolen. None of the property, however, was returned to the large surviving Hungarian Jewish community from whom the Gold Train assets had been confiscated. After successfully urging more than 20 countries to establish historical commissions to examine their role in dealing with looted Nazi assets, President Clinton followed my recommendation to create our own Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States. The commission, headed by Edgar Bronfman--who played a critical role in exposing the misuse of Jewish bank accounts by Swiss banks--first publicly disclosed the disturbing facts about the Hungarian Gold Train in an interim report in 1999 and in a later report in December 2000. The Bronfman-led commission, in which I served as a commissioner, did not flinch from exposing misjudgments by the American government--just as the Clinton administration did not hesitate to do for so many years with other countries. Our disclosures led to a private class-action lawsuit, Irvin Rosner et al v. United States, by more than 3,000 Hungarian Holocaust survivors against the American government, seeking an accounting of the contents of the Gold Train; a search of U.S. Army posts for the valuables and the return of any Gold Train property still in government hands; and up to $10,000 in damages from each member of the class of Hungarian Jewish survivors. Instead of acting as we had urged foreign government and their companies to act, instead of even calling for an investigation of the facts to establish whether there truly was the kind of culpability our presidential commission found, the American government moved to dismiss the case on the basis of the statute of limitations, the sovereign immunity of the United States and the inappropriateness of the federal court system as a proper forum for these claims. The government has subjected elderly survivors to rigorous depositions, and has used an expert witness, the chair of Tel Aviv University's Jewish history department, to contest some of our commission's findings and the plaintiffs' more sensational allegations. Even if the Hungarian Gold Train case is questionable on legal grounds, and even though some of the facts remain contested, the moral claim by the survivors that their assets were not returned is solid. What, then, should be done now? For starters, the mindset of the Bush administration's Justice Department must change. We must hold ourselves to the same rigorous moral and historical accountability to which we have held foreign governments and their corporations. This was the basic argument made by a bipartisan group of 17 senators, including Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Trent Lott of Mississippi, in a recent letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft. As reported in these pages two weeks ago, U.S. Federal Judge Patricia Seitz granted part of the Justice Department's motion to dismiss the Hungarian Gold Train case, but denied other parts and has ordered the United States to submit to mediation. The Justice Department should now take the opportunity to allow the mediator to review all the records and documents and to weigh the contested facts, including the amount of Hungarian Jewish assets that was actually on the Gold Train. Of course, it will be almost impossible for survivors to identify individual items that were confiscated from them and to determine which items made their way onto the Gold Train. That is why the Bush administration should apply the same ``rough justice'' concepts we used in negotiating with the Germans, Austrians, Swiss and French--this time, for the benefit of Hungarian Jewish survivors in the United States, Israel and Hungary. After all, it was no easier for slave and forced laborers of German and Austrian companies to identify their employers. Yet German and Austrian corporations and their respective governments met their responsibility and paid billions of dollars to survivors, Jews and non-Jews alike. The French government likewise faced its moral responsibility to those victimized by Vichy France. Justice would be served if the mediator appointed by Seitz was permitted to make a recommendation to the parties, Congress held a hearing on the mediator's findings and on competing allegations, and President Bush asked Congress for a reasonable lump sum payment to be allocated on a per capita basis to living Hungarian Holocaust survivors who file an affidavit identifying their moveable property that was taken in April 1944 by the pro-Nazi regime. Obviously, the American government is only responsible for what it seized on the Gold Train and failed to return. And the amount should reflect that some of the assets were sold for the benefit of Holocaust survivors in the United States, a small number of whom were Hungarian Jews. The amount, however, is less important than establishing the principle that the United States will hold itself to the same standard to which we have held others. And importantly, a simple, straightforward apology should accompany the payments for what was likely a singular deviation from the otherwise sterling conduct of the American military after World War II. The United States will then be in a stronger position to continue to urge other countries to meet their responsibilities--and we will have proved that when the shoe is on our foot, we can wear it.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the amendment extends the prohibition against all funds in this bill to assist any group or organization that does not have an explicit policy against prostitution or sex trafficking; again, something we are all in favor of getting rid of. The bill funds the Justice Department, the Commerce Department, and the Judiciary. The question is why should we refuse to help a small manufacturing firm that seeks MEP assistance, for instance, because they do not have a written policy against prostitution? Why should we encumber COPS funds to local police departments or tell the courts they cannot pay a court reporting organization that does not explicitly prohibit prostitution? What effect does this amendment have on scientific grants from NIST and contracts from NOAA? There are some who will question the motives of the opponents of this amendment and suggest that we do not fight strongly enough against prostitution and sex trafficking. I am just concerned that this will cast aspersions on us because we think this is an overbroad amendment with unintended consequences. I just wish, Mr. Chairman, that we would really take a closer look here in consultation with the sponsor, because this, I think, accomplishes or does much more than we think it does. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just make my last appeal to the gentleman. I think this may be an issue that people want to discuss; but it is certainly, from everything we can gather, not intended to be part of this bill. Secondly, it leaves incredible questions open. As I said before, anyone seeking a grant under this bill, this bill has many areas where you can, in fact, seek funding to do medical research, to do all kind of research, to contract with the government; and this is so open that nowhere else I think in our government do we say that you must first sign a document committing yourself to something before you can even be involved in receiving Federal dollars. There are laws that cover behavior, yes, that is true, fair housing, discrimination and so on. But this one, my God, there are people who have not even looked at this issue. And to suggest that if they do not have it down in writing, they have a policy that they have to present this policy, they cannot engage in research or engage in building or something else, it is totally out of left field to me. I really think this is overreaching. This is too broad, and I was really hoping that the chairman would see it that way and oppose it for the time being. I hope we could reconsider it.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this bill was put together by two staffs and two members in a very tight situation with a very low allocation. As I have said on many occasions during this debate, I think the bill is fair, but we know it is tight. And this is a large amount of money to take out of this bill, especially across the board, without any consideration to all the negotiations that went in to putting the bill together. I just think it is a bad idea, and it should be defeated. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Let me first say I am troubled by the comments of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). To tell a New Yorker, to have a New Yorker hear that we somehow do not care for the victims of September 11 is really the cheapest kind of blow a Member can put on this House floor. I care and everybody else cares. But in the process of caring for the victims of September 11, no one said we were supposed to throw away the Constitution of this country. If in fact we were attacked, as some people would propose, because we are different, if in fact we were attacked because we are a great democracy, if in fact as some people propose we were attacked because people hate our freedom and hate our way of life, then the one thing we have to make sure in defending ourselves and getting the bad guys is we do not harm the good guys and throw away the Constitution. That would be the biggest victory for the terrorists. I know that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is not listening to us now, but I personally take great offense to the fact; and I am glad that the gentleman from Connecticut is now listening because I think that was a low blow. I knew people that died there. I was friends with people who died there. We all are. Everybody in this country became a New Yorker that day. That is a fact of life. From Oklahoma to Portland, Oregon to Miami, Florida, everybody became an American and a New Yorker that day; so do not mix one with the other. The fact of life is that we are talking here about a very difficult situation. The FBI still has the right under the gentleman's amendment to look at what terrorists are reading and at what terrorists are doing. We want them to do that. We want them to do that. That is why we support the FBI's efforts. But what somebody else is reading which has nothing to do with terrorists, with an opportunity now to invade our privacy like we have never seen before in this country, that is not what this argument is about, and it should not be mixed that way. I think it is offensive to some of us who believe we can defend our country and protect our Constitution to be reminded every day that if we question this policy and if we question the PATRIOT Act, we are somehow un-American and not patriotic enough. No one should ever question us. I never question anybody's patriotism or their love for this country. Now there is traveling around the possible threat of a veto. If our President wants to veto this bill that funds the FBI's effort against terrorism, that funds the embassy security for our men and women who work overseas, that funds our war on drugs, that continues like in the homeland security bill, our fight on terrorism and the protection of our liberty and our system, let him veto it. Let the President explain to the American people that he vetoed it because the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) wanted to make one small change. My friends, the PATRIOT Act, and I must commend the leaders of this House, they are good at taking a bill that does just the opposite and calling it something that it is not. The PATRIOT Act is everything but the PATRIOT Act. It is probably the act that takes away a lot of our abilities to continue to be patriots, but that is another issue. This bill is what it is. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is just trying to make it better. But I think my most important point here today is we should be careful what we say and how we say it because this is not the time to divide the country; this is the time to simply unite it. Let me conclude my comments by reminding us of what one of our Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, said: ``They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' That is our problem at the present moment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. To be honest, there is some confusion around here as to where this amendment is going. I know that the chairman already said it is a good amendment, and I understand my colleague said he would accept the amendment. But we are just trying to figure out if, indeed, this amendment should be on this bill at all, or if it should be in the foreign operations bill. I would like to ask the chairman that question, if he feels this belongs here, or if he feels it belongs in the foreign operations bill. And secondly, if he understands, as I do, that this bill really speaks not to one section of our bill I guess, but to all sections, that if someone does not have a written policy, a policy, by the way, that no one is against in this House or should be against, that this would go into effect. In other words, this would not be the first time that there is some confusion on an amendment, and that is what we are trying to say.

Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. One of the reasons I did not ask the chairman for time and took my own time is I did not want to say anything the chairman did not agree with on his time. But I would imagine that the sponsor of this amendment has not voted against expenditures for the war, and yet he is concerned about expenditures for international organizations, my point being that this is probably the worst time in our history to withdraw from international organizations. We are, and I am one of those who believes that we were wrong in invading Iraq; I am one of those who believes that we were misled on every issue, including weapons of mass destruction and to go into this war. But whether we were misled or not and whether one agrees with me or not, the end result is the same. We are rebuilding the country; and an incredible amount of money, paid for by the taxpayers, is going into Iraq. And especially at a time now when so many people in that region and throughout the world have lost respect for us, this is not the time to withdraw from international organizations. On the contrary, this is the time when we should take some of that money we are spending on rebuilding in Iraq, some of that money we are spending on that war and use it to join still more organizations. Why? Because, unlike the war, and unlike the invasion, these organizations give us an opportunity to look as the people we are, a good, caring Nation that cares about the rest of the people in the world and wants to help; not one that invades people on false assumptions and premises. So I would say to the gentleman that his concern about taxpayer dollars being spent here, right now this is probably one of the better areas to spend taxpayer dollars, and not in the areas we are spending them right now. I would really wish that the gentleman would reconsider this amendment, because this amendment, unfortunately, may get some people's excitement up and foolishly support it in a way that would hurt our involvement. Even President Bush, lately, has been quoted as saying that he is supportive of the work the U.N. is doing and the kinds of things that have to be done. Lastly, the gentleman is still, as some Members are, upset at the fact that the Germans and the Russians and the French did not agree with us on this particular invasion. Well, we do not agree with them on a lot of things and that does not mean we drop out of dealing with them on a daily basis and working with them to make a better world for all of us. So I would hope the gentleman would reconsider this. If not, then I would hope that people vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. It almost gets tiresome to deal with the fact that this amendment keeps coming up every so often, and it just looks different, or it attempts to sound different, but it is the same amendment. And we have to understand that, but we need to explain it over and over again. What these amendments try to do, and the King amendment is part of this approach, is to engage local law enforcement, local police departments, local sheriffs departments in enforcing immigration law. On its face that does not sound terrible, but in reality it is a major problem. That is the reason why just about every single local police department in the Nation has repeatedly stated that they do not want to take on the duties of enforcing immigration law. Here is the problem. Whether you are here undocumented, or whether you are here legally awaiting citizenship or another status, and, in fact, I would venture to say if you are a citizen who looked at the immigration department as a group of folks who were not interested necessarily in helping you but making your life difficult, you do not feel comfortable dealing with immigration officials. On the other hand, local police departments throughout this country have done a great job in letting immigrants, regardless of their status, know that they are here to help and they are here to work together with them. So what the local police departments have been able to accomplish above all is to gain the confidence of newly-arrived folks in this country so that when they see a crime, when they see someone committing a crime, they come forth, give information, participate and assist the police. The reason local law enforcement does not want any of these amendments to pass or their involvement in enforcing immigration law, which would be the effect of this, is that they then would be seen by those immigrants as someone that cannot be trusted, someone they cannot deal with, and they will lose their ability to do what they do best, which is solve local crime and get the bad folks who create problems in our communities. So, please, I would want everyone who looks at this series of amendments to pay attention to the fact that while it may look good on its face, the final result is local law enforcement officials being seen by the immigrant community as adversaries, as enemies in some cases. This is not what the police departments want to do. This is not what they should do, and this is not what we should ask them to do.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield once again, I want to thank her for her tireless work on the census. I share her enthusiasm in this area, and I assure her that we will continue to try to make their work easier and better.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), my friend and colleague, for this effort. Our eyes do not deceive us. It is not $50 million. It is not $50 billion. It is $50,000. But in so many ways it is trillions, because it affects people who have been hurt. And while the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) is not to wear this on his sleeve, I happen to know that, as we all do, his family was touched by this tragedy. And so the support that he continues to give the victims and the families is one that makes a lot of sense to all of us. Again, we have done so much to honor those folks who have served and who gave their lives and the families that were touched; and yet this little symbol, and it is little in the sense of what it costs and yet gigantic in what it means to people, is something that should move ahead.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. As I understand this amendment, this brings us into an area that we have discussed before, and it is this whole issue of local law enforcement involved in immigration activities. This is interesting. When we took this up before on different occasions, we were able through this amendment to unite law enforcement throughout the Nation because local police departments continue to tell us that it is in their best interest not to appear to the immigrant population to be involved in enforcing immigration law. In other words, what the police departments at a local level want more than anything else is to be able to speak to residents of that community, be they citizens, legal residents, or undocumented aliens, needing their information, needing their support, in dealing with crime in the community. There are many things that are wrong with this amendment. But the one that I single out is that one because what that does is immediately create a wall between local law enforcement and the immigrant community, saying if I go to him to tell him I know who stole that car, if I go to him to tell him I know who robbed the local grocery store, I am then being faced by a local official who has to by law, in these cases, if these amendments are approved, has to turn me in on my immigration status. And that is totally unacceptable. So if anything else, I would hope that we fully understand that this does not enjoy the support of local law enforcement and should not be a burden. It is, in fact, and I cannot believe I am actually going to say this in one of my conservative moments, it is, in fact, an unfunded mandate because we are telling them to engage in activities that we are not paying for. For that reason, I rise in strong opposition and hope the amendment is defeated.