Joseph Hoeffel

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the Rockledge Volunteer Fire Company on its one hundred years of service to that community. Many things have changed for the company since its founding in 1903. It has grown from a single wagon pulled by the firefighters themselves to a small fleet of trucks capable of meeting all fire fighting needs. While it was once reliant on others to help put out its fires, the Rockledge Volunteer Fire Company is now large enough to lend its services beyond the town borders of Rockledge. The fire company has become a staple in Rockledge, and its members have always been active in the community that they served. The late Jules Ceigelkowski served in the company for seventy years, and Robert Snyder, a former police and fire chief in Rockledge just celebrated sixty years of service in 2002. In addition, the fire company offers junior memberships to those under the age of 18. Since its beginning, the Rockledge Fire company has been based on volunteerism, community, and caring for others. I firmly believe that it is those three principles that will continue to carry the company and its members for many years to come, and I am grateful for the service the company continues to provide to the citizens of Rockledge. Again, I congratulate the Rockledge Volunteer Fire Company on its 100th anniversary.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I have the sad task of informing my colleagues that my predecessor, Gus Yatron, passed away unexpectedly early this morning. Gus Yatron dedicated his entire life to public service, first serving as a school director for the Reading School District, and then serving in the Pennsylvania State House and in the Pennsylvania State Senate. He served with distinction in the halls of Congress for 24 years. During Gus Yatron's years of public service, he helped thousands of people and was respected by all the colleagues that he served with. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Millie; his daughter, Theana; his son, George; and to his grandchildren.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I agree with her concern because Pennsylvania doctors have a tremendous problem with medical malpractice premiums doubling and tripling, but they have been sold a bill of goods. This bill will not bring down their premiums. We should try to help those doctors, but not by punishing the most severely injured victims of medical malpractice. We need insurance reform. The law in California did not work to bring down premiums. When they put a $250,000 cap on damages, the premiums continued to rise until they passed insurance reform in 1988 and mandated a reduction in premiums. That is what we need to be doing here. At a minimum, we have got to put flexibility into these hard and inflexible caps. We ought to allow the trial judge at a minimum to allow something above the caps if circumstances on a case-by-case basis require that, but this House will not allow that to happen. Let us look at the sad case of Linda McDougal, who was diagnosed with breast cancer and had both breasts removed because of the lab report. It turned out the lab was wrong. The good news for Linda McDougal is that she does not have breast cancer. The bad news is she does not have breasts anymore. What is that worth? The proponents of this legislation would say that a woman's breasts are worth no more than $250,000. I do not want my colleagues to make that decision. I want a jury to make that decision. I want to defeat this bill.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I was absent for votes on Wednesday, March 12, 2003, as a result of my participation in the memorial service honoring Robert H. Haakenson. Had I been present, I would have cast my votes as follows: Rollcall vote No. 53, ``aye'', Rollcall vote No. 54, ``aye'', Rollcall vote No. 55, ``aye'', Rollcall vote No. 56, ``aye'', Rollcall vote No. 57, ``aye''.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to state that unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq at this time is not in our best national interest. Certainly Saddam Hussein must be disarmed and Iraq must be rid of weapons of mass destruction. Equally clear is our power to act unilaterally and successfully against Iraq, or any other country for that matter. I am proud we have that power, and we must sustain it. But the question is not whether we will prevail against Iraq. We will, with or without help. The real question is whether it is in our best national interest to unilaterally use our awesome power against Iraq. I believe it is not. We may not need help to win a war, but we will need help the day after the war is won, and that help must come from a multinational or a United Nations effort. We need our friends to help with peacekeeping, with rebuilding and with international credibility, and that support will be absent if we take unilateral action. This is not about winning United Nations permission to protect ourselves. We do not need that permission. This is about winning United Nations support to protect all civilized countries from the Iraqi threat. President Bush must forge a strong coalition through continued diplomacy before using American military power. If he does not, we will be isolated and less secure, and that is not in our national interest. President Bush very skillfully won unanimous Security Council support last fall to restart the arms inspections, and he deserves great credit for that. After the initial success, however, the administration has not been able to maintain that unity and cannot even muster unity today among the five permanent nations of the Security Council. What is the problem here? We are talking about an isolated country with a fourth-rate military and a leader who is a murderous tyrant that has no support and no friends in the United Nations. Yet the Security Council is split. Why is that? I believe it is because of the inept, bungled, cowboy diplomacy of the President of the United States and his senior advisers. Six months ago, after a great deal of soul searching, I voted to give the President military authority to use force to rid Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction. The President asked for that authority and said he would exhaust all diplomatic options before using it. And his strategy worked. The inspections were restarted. I am convinced that while those inspections have not been met with enough cooperation, the inspectors' presence in Iraq has made Saddam Hussein less dangerous for the time being. The administration has had much less success since then, and the root cause is simple: cowboy diplomacy from this administration. Every diplomatic thrust has been met with rhetoric that belies and often contradicts the diplomatic efforts. Administration spokesmen speak nearly every day with rhetoric that implies we are bent on war, with or without U.N. support, with or without our traditional and closest allies. The implication is that diplomacy is just something to take up time and distract attention until all of our troops are in place. The Bush administration spent much of its pre-9-11 days acting unilaterally on a variety of fronts, the environment, the ABM Treaty and many other ways, even though promising a new foreign policy run with humility during the 2002 election campaign. In that broader sense, it comes as no surprise that so many of our allies are not joining us now. Then last week, in the middle of this diplomatic standoff, the administration released its plans for a post-Saddam Iraq, which included the possibility of a civilian American government. I think that is a great mistake. It will certainly be necessary, if we invade Iraq, for there to be military occupation to keep people from murdering each other for a time. That occupation will be essential; but we should not impose an American civil government. We should be looking for a multinational or a United Nations program to provide an interim civil government, and certainly our goal has to be to establish a representative and stable Iraqi government itself. The Bush plan smacks of colonialism, and could give ammunition to those who question our motives in seeking to disarm Hussein in the first place. It is dangerous to conduct a unilateral invasion of Iraq. It will undermine our credibility and legitimacy that this country has built up over decades of global leadership. We must realize that when we question the motives of countries like Germany and France, they question ours. We must work with them. I call on the Bush administration to renew its efforts to secure a broad multinational coalition or U.N. mandate to disarm Iraq.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I was absent for votes on Tuesday, February 25 and Wednesday, February 26, 2003, as a result of the passing of my mother, Mrs. Eleanore Hoeffel. Had I been present, I would have cast my votes as follows: Rollcall vote No. 33, ``aye''; Rollcall vote No. 34, ``aye''; Rollcall vote No. 35, ``aye''; and Rollcall vote No. 36, ``aye''.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I was absent for votes on Thursday, February 27, 2003 as a result of the passing of my mother, Mrs. Eleanore Hoeffel. Had I been present, I would have cast my votes as follows: rollcall vote No. 37 ``nay,'' rollcall vote No. 38 ``aye,'' rollcall vote No. 39 ``nay.''

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Michael DiNunzio, the Mayor of Lansdale in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, on being the recipient of the North Penn B'nai Brith Humanitarian Award. I am pleased to recognize Mike for his dedicated career in service to his community and country. Mayor DiNunzio has been the Mayor of Lansdale for over twenty years. He has a record of distinction in the community. In working to improve the lives of Lansdale residents, he served his community in many different capacities. Many organizations and programs have benefited from Mike's leadership. Mayor DiNunzio is committed to public service. He was a member of the Lansdale Development Foundation for the revitalization of the Borough of Lansdale. He served as president of the Association of Mayors of the Boroughs of Pennsylvania where he was awarded their highest honor, the ``Outstanding Mayor for 2000'' award. Mike served as a member of the North Penn Visiting Nurses Association for 56 years and was president of that group for 25 years. He also served as the vice-president of the Lansdale Public Library for 15 years. For five years, Mike served on the executive committee of the Montgomery County Boy Scouts. He is an active member of the Lansdale Rotary Club. Mike is the past president and board member of the United Way and the North Penn Chamber of Commerce, which he worked with for 15 years. Mike DiNunzio served in the Military with distinction. He was in the U.S. Air Force during World War II and remains a member of the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars. I have worked closely with Mayor DiNunzio over the years on behalf of Lansdale residents. He is an honorable and committed public servant. In congratulate him on receiving this award and wish him continued success.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Jenkintown United Methodist Church which is celebrating its 100th anniversary on November 1, 2002. One hundred thirty five years ago, the Jenkintown United Methodist Church was established to provide the people of Jenkintown with a local Methodist place of worship. The congregation is now celebrating its 100th anniversary in its current location. Led by Rev. Jay R. Newlin, the church continues to be a vital and thriving community of faith. The Jenkintown United Methodist Church places a strong emphasis on outreach. It operates foreign missions in Africa and Indonesia, national missions in Appalachia, New Mexico, and works with several inner city Philadelphia churches. Within the local Jenkintown community, the church is home to several ministries and missions. ``Loaves and Fishes,'' a food cupboard established by the church in 1985 assists more than 40 families per week. The church is also host to weekly meetings to help those who struggle with addiction as well as their friends and family. A Community Teen Center was organized in 2000 as a drug-free and alcohol- free safe haven for local teenagers. The church also works with a retirement home on the Adopt-a-Grandparent program providing the opportunity for children and youth to participate in the local ministry. I congratulate the Jenkintown United Methodist Church on its 100 years of service to the local, national and world community.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, we face a toxic mix in Iraq: dangerous weapons controlled by a dangerous tyrant. From the beginning of this national debate, I have felt strongly that we must act through the United Nations, in concert with our allies, and with multinational support, and focus on the weapons of mass destruction and disarming Hussein. Clearly, we must rid Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction and the means of producing new weapons of mass destruction. If Saddam resists and regime change thus occurs, we must be prepared for what happens next, the very next day. Accordingly, I oppose the initial resolution the President sent to the Congress. It gave credence to the fear that we would, as a first step, act in a preemptive unilateral military strike, which I would not support and do not support in the absence of an imminent threat to the United States. That resolution was too broad, did not require the President to work through the U.N., and did not address our plans for the future of Iraq. Since then, the House and the administration, in a bipartisan manner, have negotiated a compromise resolution that addresses many of those issues. I support the resolution now. It strikes a good balance between urging a multilateral approach and preserving America's right to defend our citizens. The President has promised congressional leaders he will exhaust all options at the U.N. before taking military action. At a White House briefing I attended last week, the National Security Adviser and the CIA Director made the same assurances. The resolution, even with this balancing and moderating language, still represents a grant of broad military authority to the President, broad authority for the President to wage war. The question is, Do we trust the President's judgment to use this authority wisely? This President came to office without much background in foreign policy and without much apparent interest in foreign policy. The President's initial steps in foreign relations were an isolating brand of unilateralism that told the world that America would thrive if we acted alone in our own interests. Then came 9-11 and the President changed his policies, and I am glad he did. In the war on terror, the President resolutely has led this country, skillfully assembled the international coalition against terror, and has made necessary and appropriate use of America's military power. Presidential historians argue and teach that presidents grow fond of foreign and military exercise of power because they can more readily make things happen than in the domestic arena, and I think this President is no different. President Bush has clearly come to relish the exercise of American power on the world stage, and he deserves the strong public and congressional support generated to date by his policies against terror. I hope and pray the President also understands and respects the need for restraint in the use of America's awesome military power. I hope his judgments will be sound. Mr. Speaker, I urge the President in the strongest terms to adhere to the letter and spirit of this resolution in exhausting all diplomatic options in order to disarm Saddam Hussein. But the use of American military power alone will not meet all of our challenges. We must be prepared for the challenges of nation building, prepared for challenges of peacekeeping. We must be prepared for the redevelopment of Iraq and other trouble spots around the world where people not just have to deal with the grinding poverty and the lack of day-to-day opportunity but they have to deal with day-in, day-out sense of hopelessness. We must consider the demand for a new, modern-day Marshall Plan to address the development needs, the food and educational needs, the hope that people must have to lead to democracy and self-government.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue. The doctors in my district in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and all in the Philadelphia area, face a financial crisis, the same as many doctors around the country, as we have heard here today. This bill will not solve their crisis. This bill does not reflect a comprehensive effort to solve the medical malpractice crisis that we face in southeastern Pennsylvania and across many parts of this country. Nobody wants a compromise. Nobody wants to come together in a reasonable way to find a middle ground. That has happened at various State levels, but it is not happening here in Washington. It is not happening because the Washington representatives of the doctors do not want to compromise; the Washington representatives of the lawyers do not want to compromise. The Committee on Rules has brought forward a closed rule so the House of Representatives cannot be involved in working our will. If we were to make a good-faith effort to address medical malpractice around the country, we would fundamentally have to address insurance industry reform, and that bill is completely silent on that issue. Frankly, we need to partially lift the antitrust exemption that the insurance industry has enjoyed for 55 years, that allows them to collude, to engage in anticompetitive practices. Those are the problems that are driving up medical malpractice insurance rates, in addition to their losses in the stock market that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has already described. We need to give the Attorney General the ability to regulate national insurance companies because the States are not doing it, and we are not, we are not having these anticompetitive practices investigated and resolved. If we are going to make a good-faith effort regarding caps which are, by their nature, inflexible and arbitrary, we need to add judicial discretion, at a minimum, to any cap, so that a court can make a judgment that could allow an award to reflect what the jury has found in that particular case, not what this body chooses to impose here in Washington as an inflexible one-size-fits-all. Madam Speaker, this bill does not resolve the problem. We are failing here today. I ask for a negative vote on the rule and against the bill.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Jewish National Fund which is celebrating its 100th anniversary on October 6, 2002. The Jewish National Fund (JNF) was established with the express purpose of bringing Jews from around the world together and make the Zionist dream of a Jewish state a reality. JNF was formed at the Fifth Zionist Congress in order to motivate people from around the world to collect spare change in tin ``Blue Boxes,'' to be used to purchase the land that would one day become the state of Israel. These Blue Boxes became a symbol of Zionism and they were distributed in Jewish communities everywhere, creating a bond that was felt by the Jewish community as a whole. Through this unity, the Zionist movement built the nation of Israel that continues to flourish and thrive. In the spring of 1903, JNF acquired its first parcel of land of 800 acres in Hadera, Israel. Immediately, JNF focused on greening the land through the planting of trees. To date, JNF has planted over 210 million trees on 250,000 acres across Israel. JNF has grown with the country's changing needs by building infrastructure for essential new communities which accommodate Israel's growing population. The JNF is responsible for building access roads, providing employment for waves of new immigrants, and improving the quality of life for Israelis across the country. Today JNF continues to be a major force in the development of Israel through water resource development, education, research and development, community development and tourism and recreation. These successes across such a wide range of activities have benefited the lives of countless Israeli citizens. The reach of JNF extends beyond Israel's boarders providing a link between Jews around the world with the Jewish state. I congratulate the Jewish National Fund on its 100 years of service to the Zionist movement and the state of Israel and wish them many more years of continued success.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the resolution that Representative Greenwood and I introduced yesterday, which will name the new Veterans clinic in Horsham, Pennsylvania after Victor J. Saracini, a distinguished veteran and victim of the attacks on September 11. Victor J. Saracini served his country with great pride as an exemplary technical coordinator aboard S-3A fighterjets on the U.S.S. Saratoga. He served in the Naval Reserve at the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, until his honorable discharge as lieutenant in 1985. Victor Saracini was the recipient of the National Defense Service Medal, the Navy E Ribbon, and the Expert Marksmanship Ribbon. On the morning of September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked the Los Angeles-bound airplane that Captain Saracini was piloting, and reset course for the South Tower of the World Trade Center, killing everyone on board and murdering hundreds of other innocent civilians inside the building. These innocent victims, Mr. Saracini included, represent our nation's first casualties in this war on terror. To honor the life of Victor Saracini, devoted aviator, distinguished veteran, and proud defender of America's freedom, is to honor all victims of September 11 and their families. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I call on the House Veterans Affairs Committee to pass this resolution and bring it to the floor of the House of Representatives as soon as possible.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, recently, as the one-year anniversary of September 11 approached, I looked back over the statement I released the day after the attacks occurred. As I read the statement that was issued even as the smoke and dust still billowed over Lower Manhattan, the Pentagon and a field in rural Pennsylvania, I was struck by how easy it was to write some of the words and how difficult it was to write others. It was tremendously difficult to put into words my feelings of disbelief and anger over the insane acts of 19 individuals and their supporters. It still is. It was heart rending to try to voice the sorrow and sympathy I felt for the victims and their families. And that, too, is still difficult. It was not difficult, however to write the words of hope, pride and conviction I had for this country and its people on September 12. And, today, a year later, I am happy to report that the hope, pride and conviction were well-founded. On September 12, 2001 1 wrote, in part: ``As I walked to work across the Capitol grounds this morning, a day after the attacks, I was struck as I often am by the incredible beauty of the U.S. Capitol building. The dome was shining a brilliant white against a clear blue sky on a beautiful late summer day. I realized that the glorious dome, such a symbol of the strength and stability of our country, might well have been the final target of the ill-fated fourth hijacked plane. ``The simple truth is that even if a terrorist act had destroyed the dome, or if a thousand terrorist acts had obliterated the entire capital, America would still be standing firm as it is today.'' In the past year, we have cried and cursed. We have opened our hearts and our wallets. We have buried our dead and we continue to heal our wounded and sorrowful. We have cleared the debris and begun to rebuild. Our President has led, and Congress has indeed stood shoulder to shoulder with him in support. Our soldiers have fought bravely and we here at home have done what we do best--we went back to work. We will never again look at the world in the same way. We are sadder. We are wiser. We are closer. And, as I said a year ago, we are still standing firm. We've been through a lot. There will be tough times ahead, but today I have even a stronger feeling of hope, pride and conviction in our country and its people. God Bless America.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add $5 million to the grazing management account of the forest service from the general account of the forest service. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us would allow the forest service to automatically renew expiring livestock grazing permits without completing the required environmental assessments. I think that this blanket waiver proposed under the terms of the bill is, from a policy point of view, a bad idea; but I understand the practical reasons for doing this waiver, for proposing this waiver. The problem is the forest service does not have the resources to do all of the environmental assessments that it should do when it renews livestock grazing permits. Everybody agrees that abuse of grazing can be bad for the land. It can jeopardize endangered species. It can pollute streams and lakes, and it can lead to soil erosion; and everybody understands the environmental assessments are a positive step to working cooperatively with the ranching community and with the environmental community through the good offices of the forest service to protect the land, to allow it to be used appropriately for grazing, which is a necessary activity in the West, necessary for the economic stability of the West. In our efforts to be good stewards of the land, the forest service needs the resources to conduct these environmental reviews, and they have at the forest service a huge backlog. In 1995 in the rescissions act, Congress allowed them to waive these environmental assessments, but they were supposed to follow a self- determined schedule for trying to do those assessments as best they could. By their own acknowledgment, they are 55 percent behind even their own schedule of assessments. The system is not working. I think a blanket waiver alone is not the right answer, nor is it the right answer to oppose the waiver because such a block of the waiver might also have unintended consequences, bad for the ranching community and not helpful to environmental protection. So I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member, for already recognizing this problem. The underlying bill would add $6 million to the grazing management account in the forest service. My amendment would add an additional $5 million to the grazing management account. It would help the forest service complete these assessments; and I have received a commitment only verbally, I am afraid, not in writing, from the forest service that it will use these additional funds, the funds that the committee has already earmarked and the additional funds represented by this amendment, to catch up on the backlog of environmental assessments that go back to 1999 all the way through 2002 and to work to do as many environmental assessments in 2003 as they possibly can. The more money we give them, the better job they can do. I thank the Chair and his staff and the ranking member and his staff for coming together for this good idea in this cooperative way, and I hope we can agree to do the proper oversight of the forest service to make sure that they live up to their commitments to do the very best job with these environmental assessments as possible.

Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his kind words and for his support and his staff's support on this important amendment.

Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, and I thank the gentleman who spoke for their comments. I ask for support for the amendment.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for the Capps-Rahall-Million amendment. This important amendment would work toward ending 36 undeveloped oil leases off the Californian cost. If these leases are allowed to be developed, we risk the tragic environmental contamination of a great swath of coastline. Executive Orders have placed moratoriums on developing these leases since 1990 and this outstanding amendment moves us closer to a permanent solution that will protect the health of the coast. While I am greatly pleased with this amendment, I must also voice my criticism of two provisions within this bill that I find objectionable. I have long been an opponent of corporate welfare in its many forms. This bill contains several provisions that benefit corporate America at the expense of the American taxpayer. I believe that the are wrong and should be addressed. The fee charged for grazing animals on public lands is one of the most blatant and objectionable subsidies in this bill. Currently, ranchers may apply for permits to graze their animals on Federal land at significantly below market rates. The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service each charge approximately $1.43 per animal per month, whereas the market value of the same averages $13.10 per head. This is a 915 percent difference. This body and this country should not allow this gift to continue unabated. This bill also contains another offensive subsidy to corporate America that should be addressed. Hardrock mining, the mining of solid minerals that are not fuel from rock deposits, are governed by the General Mining Law of 1872. The law ranges free access to individuals and corporations to prospect for minerals in public domain lands, and allows them, upon making a discovery, to stake (or ``locate'') a claim on that deposit. A claim gives the holder the right to develop the minerals and may be ``patented'' to convey full title to the claimant. The total amount of money that the claimant pays to the government to develop the mining claim is a $100 a year holding fee and between $2.50 and $5.00 an acre (not adjusted since 1872) for an application fee. The 1872 law allows companies to extract minerals without paying a royalty. This is unlike all other resources taken from public lands. For example, oil gas and coal industries operating on public lands pay a 12.5 percent royalty on the gross income of the operation. We are giving away resources that belong to us all. The public interest is not being served, and will not be served until we eliminate this example of corporate welfare.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on two suspension bills on July 8, 2002, as I was returning from Berlin, Germany where I participated in the annual assembly of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe as a member of the official United States delegation. If present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 4609, the Rathdrum Prairie Spokane Valley Aquifer Study Act, and ``aye'' on H.R. 2643, the Fort Clatsop National Memorial Expansion Act.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his kind remarks, and also for his many years of leadership on this issue. Also, I want to salute the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for a career that we should all emulate and follow in terms of human rights and for justice around the world. I want to compliment the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for bringing this resolution to the floor, denouncing anti-Semitism wherever it is found in Europe or this country. I certainly want to acknowledge, as others have, the great leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who led our delegation this past weekend to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. I want to share a little with my colleagues the work led by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and joined by all of the American delegates. We were proud to do so, in bringing this challenge of anti- Semitism and the need to denounce anti-Semitism to the OSCE and, hopefully, to all of the governments of Europe. We made an historic effort, through the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) leading the American delegation and the leadership of Dr. Gert Weisskirchen, a German parliamentarian and the leader of his delegation, in a joint delegation assembly to talk about the evils of anti-Semitism, to bring forward four experts to talk to all of us about the need to speak out and denounce anti-Semitism. This was the first time that the American delegation and the German delegation had ever met in a separate event, invited the press in, invited experts in to talk to us. I wish, I say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), I wish all of our colleagues could have heard what we heard from Abraham Foxman, the executive director of the Anti-Defamation League, in which he talked about the need to speak out to denounce anti-Semitism. He talked about the events in Germany recently, where after a number of events aimed against Jews, just for being Jews, the official advice to the Jewish community in Germany is to stop wearing visible signs of their faith.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) very kindly. I simply want to say, what kind of advice is that? How can anybody say, ``avoid wearing visible signs of your faith,'' as if that is the way to deal with the hatred that is being directed against Jews in Germany and across Europe? The way to deal with it, as Mr. Foxman pointed out, is to speak out, to speak out loudly, to denounce it, to make sure that everybody knows how unacceptable that hatred and intolerance is. We will win this victory if we step forward, and if people around the world step forward and say that anti-Semitism is un-American, that it is un-German, that it is un-French, that it is un-Ukrainian, that it is against the basic principles of a civilized people wherever it happens around the world. Mr. Speaker, that is the fight we are joining. That is what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has done for 20-some years, and that is what the whole career of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has been about. That is what my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) is fighting for today, and I am honored to join my colleagues in that fight.