Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 264.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I am delighted to yield to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This debate is really why we need NATO. The reason for creating NATO is to preserve free and open societies. The reason to have NATO is so that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and others who spoke against NATO expansion should have the opportunity to speak freely and openly, not just in the United States but throughout Europe, throughout an expanding and open and democratic Europe. We are creating NATO so people in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia and elsewhere should have the same opportunities we have here. There has never been more need for a military alliance dedicated to preserving and expanding democratic free and open societies which was more palpable than today. We have heard a great deal about building a coalition against international terrorism. The majority of those so-called coalition members are police states and dictatorships. They will not fight for free and open and democratic societies. They may oppose Osama bin Laden, they may oppose specific terrorist acts; but they are not in favor of what we are in favor of, a free and open and democratic society. And the top guarantee of that is the expansion of NATO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), in the spirit of collegiality and bipartisanship, knowing full well he will be taking the side which is opposed to my position.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a valued and thoughtful member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset identify myself with all the comments made by my colleagues concerning our late friend, Jerry Solomon. Jerry Solomon was a most distinguished Member of this body and his leadership on the NATO issue simply cannot be overstated. Let me also commend my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) whose leadership of the congressional delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly has been extraordinary. He has earned our respect as the leader of our NATO delegation, and I want to pay public tribute to him. I also want to acknowledge the contributions to NATO and our participation of the chairman emeritus of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), our current chairman. Mr. Speaker, Congress has consistently led the way in supporting NATO enlargement and for a strong and robust role for NATO in Europe. One of the most memorable moments in my congressional service was to fly with our former Secretary of State Madeline Albright to Independence, Missouri, with the foreign ministers of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic when we moved to include those three former Communist states, having cleansed themselves of their past as full members of NATO. NATO is the longest surviving alliance of all time, and it has endured because it is an alliance of free and democratic nations. No country was ever forced to join the alliance by a larger and stronger power, in sharp contrast to the Warsaw Pact where every single member was forced into that pact by the power and might of the Soviet Union. There can be no better endorsement of NATO's success and achievements than the desire of the newly emerging countries of Central and Eastern Europe to join this alliance. Now, the post-September 11 era, Mr. Speaker, has brought us new realities, and one of them is the critical role that NATO can play in the fight against international terrorism. As a matter of fact, although we did not plan it this way, my friend, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, yesterday in an op-ed in the Washington Post states correctly that NATO has found its new mission, and that mission is to lead the way along with the United States in the global war against international terrorism. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I were managing the legislation, giving our President whatever powers he needs to wage this war. And while we were here in this Chamber, our NATO allies invoked Article 5 of the NATO Treaty stating, in essence, that the attack on one NATO member is an attack on all members of NATO, and they have given us and will continue to give us their support in every conceivable form. In this context today, I want to acknowledge the Government of Germany for yesterday making the historic decision of committing German troops to the war in Afghanistan, a historic first for that country. NATO members, Mr. Speaker, have also responded immediately and willingly to the call by President Bush to cut terrorist financing. In this context, let me just mention parenthetically that NATO members stand in sharp contrast to the arrogant governmental action of Lebanon, which is refusing to give us cooperation in cracking down on the financial capabilities of international terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. Our NATO allies share intelligence with the United States regarding both Osama bin Laden and the entire al-Qaeda network. Just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, President Bush spoke via satellite to the Warsaw Conference on combatting terrorism, where all of the nations of Eastern and Central Europe who wish to join NATO were represented. Although the war on terrorism is now our top national priority, we must remain engaged with our allies on a wide spectrum of issues, including NATO enlargement. The next NATO summit in Prague in 2002 will be the first opportunity for the applicant countries to formally present their bids for membership in NATO. Our bill demonstrates our strong belief that this process must not be and will not be sidelined. The 10 countries which are hoping to become members of NATO, and I will read them in alphabetical order, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Rumania, Slovakia and Slovenia, are all seeking membership in this great peace-loving alliance. As my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) indicated, they will have to meet some very tough yardsticks to be judged worthy of joining NATO. They relate not only to having achieved a certain degree of economic success and having made a contribution to their own defense and the collective defense, but they must demonstrate that they are practicing a respect for human rights, religious rights, minority rights and press freedom. They have to demonstrate that they are free and open democratic societies. I want to underscore, Mr. Speaker, that the upcoming summit in Prague, where we will be looking at the new applicants for membership in NATO, is the first and not the last of such meetings. The Prague Summit is part of a measured and carefully managed process of including more and more of our European friends in NATO. Invitations will be extended to the applicants consistent with their compliance with the NATO membership action plan. As do all of my colleagues in this Congress, I support a Europe whole and free. And I strongly endorse the statements of the 10 applicant countries that eventual NATO membership for all of them will be a success for the United States, for Europe and for NATO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word about Russia. Following the events of September 11, Mr. Speaker, clearly a new relationship is evolving between the United States and Russia. Next week we are looking forward to welcoming the Russian President, Mr. Putin, in Washington, who then will go on for a more intimate meeting with the President in Crawford, Texas. There is a whole new flavor to the Russian/U.S. relationship, and it is apparent in a dozen different ways. We are modifying our previous position of just a few months ago with respect to the ABM Treaty to missile testing. The Russians are asking that we put an end to Jackson-Vanik, which was historic human rights legislation but which has served its purpose. I look forward to the day when a democratic Russia will be able to explore the possibility of joining NATO; and I think it is important to underscore, in dealing with the expansion of NATO, that this is in no sense directed at Russia. Russia is no longer our enemy, and we are looking forward to the day when it will be our ally. I, for one, welcome President Putin's new attitude towards NATO enlargement and his statement that he would not rule out NATO membership for Russia. Let me say we also do not rule out that possibility. This represents an important change, a historic change in Russian perceptions of the NATO alliance, a sentiment that we should continue to encourage strongly. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

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

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend.

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

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of this bill. Madam Speaker, this is an extremely important piece of legislation, and I want to commend my good friend and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), for introducing this legislation and being its principal sponsor. He deserves enormous credit. I also want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), for being the principal Democratic author, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for expediting the handling of the legislation. Madam Speaker, as our military is executing our plans in Afghanistan with extraordinary skill, we are falling behind in the battle for the minds and hearts and souls of the people of Afghanistan. It is almost incomprehensible that our values should be challenged and questioned by the barbaric nihilists of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban leadership. I support this legislation because it is evident that we need to increase dramatically our public diplomacy not just in Afghanistan but across the Muslim world. The Middle East Broadcasting initiative, announced by the administration, and Radio Free Afghanistan, established by this legislation, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), are two important initiatives that will help us reach tens of millions of Muslims to provide fair, accurate, dependable information about the United States, our values and our policies. I remember well during the Second World War how powerful it was to listen to the British Broadcasting Corporation and the American Voice of Freedom as a counterweight to the vicious propaganda of Hitler and Goebbels. We are in a somewhat similar fight, confronting a totalitarian, nihilistic, barbarian enemy that is ready to resort to nonstop lies and distortions to make their case. We must do much more than just pass this legislation, Madam Speaker, to reach the disaffected youth in the Middle East, in Central Asia, but also in Africa, East Asia, and across the globe. We must intensify all of our Voice of America broadcasting, and the broadcasting of Free Asia and Free Afghanistan, and we must increase our educational and cultural programs. We must come up with new and innovative ways to reach the young people who live on the outer fringes of all these societies. Marginalized youth who live without hope and without opportunity grow up into hate-filled men and women who choose to bring death and destruction to themselves and to those around them. H.R. 2998 is an important piece of legislation and moves us in the right direction of presenting the case of freedom and truth in Afghanistan. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today's issue of the Washington Post includes an excellent oped by our nation's former National Security Adviser to the President and former Secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissinger. He gives an outstanding strategic analysis of our current war on terrorism. In particular he emphasizes the importance of recognizing that our objectives in Afghanistan are limited, and we must realistically limit what we seek to do there. His analysis of our tasks beyond our action in Afghanistan is equally prescient. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to read Dr. Kissinger's brilliant article ``Where Do We Go From Here?'' and I ask that the full text be placed in the Record. [From the Washington Post Nov. 6, 2001] Where Do We Go From Here? (By Henry Kissinger) As the war against the Taliban gathers momentum, it is important to see it in its proper perspective. President Bush has eloquently described the objective as the destruction of state-supported terrorism. And for all its novelty, the new warfare permits a clear definition of victory. The terrorists are ruthless, but not numerous. They control no territory permanently. If their activities are harassed by the security forces of all countries--if no country will harbor them--they will become outlaws and increasingly obliged to devote efforts to elemental survival. If they attempt to commandeer a part of a country, as has happened to some extent in Afghanistan and Colombia, they can be hunted down by military operations. The key to anti-terrorism strategy is to eliminate safe havens. These safe havens come about in various ways. In some countries, domestic legislation or constitutional restraints inhibit surveillance unless there are demonstrated criminal acts, or they prevent transmitting what is ostensibly domestic intelligence to other countries--as seems to be the case in Germany and, to some extent, the United States. Remedial measures with respect to these situations are in train. But the overwhelming majority of safe havens occur when a government closes its eyes because it agrees with at least some of the objectives of the terrorists--as in Afghanistan, to some extent in Iran and Syria and, until recently, in Pakistan. Even ostensibly friendly countries that have been cooperating with the United States on general strategy, such as Saudi Arabia, sometimes make a tacit bargain with terrorists so long as terrorist actions are not directed against the host government. A serious anti-terrorism campaign must break this nexus. Many of the host governments know more than they were prepared to communicate before Sept. 11. Incentives must be created for the sharing of intelligence. The anti-terrorism campaign must improve security cooperation, interrupt the flow of funds, harass terrorist communications and subject the countries that provide safe haven to pressures including, in the extreme case, military pressure. In the aftermath of the attack on American soil, the Bush administration resisted arguments urging immediate military action against known terrorist centers. Instead, Secretary of State Colin Powell very skillfully brought about a global coalition that legitimized the use of military power against Afghanistan, the most flagrant provider of a safe haven for the most egregious symbol of international terrorism, Osama bin Laden. The strategy of focusing on Afghanistan carries with it two risks, however. The first is that the inherent complexities of a trackless geography and chaotic political system may divert the coalition from the ultimate objective of crippling international terrorism. Though the elimination of bin Laden and his network and associates will be a significant symbolic achievement, it will be only the opening engagement of what must be viewed as a continuing and relentless worldwide campaign. The second challenge is to guard against the temptation to treat cooperation on Afghanistan as meeting the challenge and to use it as an alibi for avoiding the necessary succeeding phases. This is why military operations in Afghanistan should be limited to the shattering of the Taliban and disintegration of the bin Laden network. Using U.S. military forces for nation-building or pacifying the entire country would involve us in a quagmire comparable to what drained the Soviet Union. The conventional wisdom of creating a broadly based coalition to govern Afghanistan is desirable but not encouraged by the historical record. The likely--perhaps optimum--outcome is a central Kabul government of limited reach, with tribal autonomy prevailing in the various regions. This essential enterprise should be put under the aegis of the United Nations, with generous economic support from the United States and other advanced industrial countries. A contact group could be created composed of Afghanistan's neighbors (minus Iraq), India, the United States and those NATO allies that participated in the military operations. This would provide a mechanism to reintroduce Iran to the international system, provided it genuinely abandons its support of terrorism. The crucial phase of America's anti-terrorism strategy will begin as the Afghanistan military campaign winds down, and its focus will have to be outside Afghanistan. At that point, the coalition will come under strain. So far the issue of long-term goals has been avoided by the formula that members of the global coalition are free to choose the degree of their involvement. A la carte coalition management worked well when membership required little more than affirming opposition to terrorism in principle. Its continued usefulness will depend on how coalition obligations are defined in the next phase. Should the convoy move at the pace of the slowest ship or should some parts of it be able to sail by themselves? If the former, the coalition effort will gradually be defined by the least-common-denominator compromises that killed the U.N. inspection system in Iraq and are on the verge of eliminating the U.N. sanctions against that country. Alternatively, the coalition can be conceived as a group united by common objectives but permitting autonomous action by whatever consensus can be created--or, in the extreme case, by the United States alone. Those who argue for the widest possible coalition--in other words, for a coalition veto--often cite the experience of the Gulf War. But the differences are significant. The Gulf War was triggered by a clear case of aggression that threatened Saudi Arabia, whose security has been deemed crucial by a bipartisan succession of American presidents. The United States decided to undo Saddam's adventure in the few months available before the summer heat made large-scale ground operations impossible. Several hundred thousand American troops were dispatched before any attempt at coalition building was undertaken. Since the United States would obviously act alone if necessary, participating in the coalition became the most effective means for influencing events. The direction of the current coalition is more ambiguous. President Bush has frequently and forcefully emphasized that he is determined to press the anti-terrorism campaign beyond Afghanistan. In due course he will supplement his policy pronouncements with specific proposals. That will be the point at which the scope of the operational coalition will become clear. There could be disagreement on what constitutes a terrorist safe haven; what measures states should take to cut off the flow of funds; what penalties there are for noncompliance; in what manner, whether and by whom force should be used. Just as, in the Gulf War, the pressures for American unilateral action provided the cement to bring a coalition together, so, in the anti-terrorism war, American determination and that of allies of comparable views are needed. A firm strategy becomes all the more important as biological weapons appear to have entered the arsenals of terrorism. Preventive action is becoming imperative. States known to possess such facilities and to have previously used them must be obliged to open themselves to strict, conclusive international inspections with obligatory enforcement mechanisms. This applies particularly to Iraq, with its long history of threats to all its neighbors and the use of chemical weapons. The conditions of international support for a firm policy exist. The attack on the United States has produced an extraordinary congruence of interests among the major powers. None wants to be vulnerable to shadowy groups that have emerged, from Southeast Asia to the edge of Europe. Few have the means to resist alone. The NATO allies have ended the debate about whether, after the end of the Cold War, there is still a need for an Atlantic security structure. Our Asian allies, Japan and Korea, being democratic and industrialized, share this conviction. India, profoundly threatened by domestic Islamic fundamentalism, has much to lose by abandoning a common course. Russia perceives a common interest due to its contiguous Islamic southern regions. China shares a similar concern with respect to its western regions and has an added incentive to bring an end to global terrorism well before the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Paradoxically, terrorism has evoked a sense of world community that has eluded theoretical pleas for world order. In the Islamic world, attitudes are more ambiguous. Many Islamic nations, though deeply concerned about fundamentalism, are constrained by their public opinion from avowing public support, and a few may sympathize with some aspects of the terrorist agenda. An understanding American attitude toward traditional friends of America, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, is appropriate. Their leaders are quite well aware that they have made compromises imposed on them by brutal domestic necessities. The administration clearly should make every effort to help them overcome these circumstances, to improve intelligence sharing and the control of money flows. But it must not undermine these governments, for in the short term, any foreseeable alternative would be worse for our interests and for the peoples involved. Yet there are limits beyond which a serious policy cannot go. There is no reason for treating as members of the coalition countries whose state- supported media advocate and justify terrorism, withhold intelligence vital to the security of potential victims and permit terrorist groups to operate from their territory. These considerations apply especially to Iran. Geopolitics argues for improved U.S.-Iranian relations. To welcome Iran into an anti-terrorism coalition has as a prerequisite the abandonment of its current role as the leading supporter of global terrorism as both the State Department and the bipartisan Bremer Commission have reported. An Iranian relationship with the West can prosper only when both sides feel the need for it. Both sides--and not only the West--must make fundamental choices. The same is true to a somewhat lesser degree of Syria. The war on terrorism is not just about hunting down terrorists. It is, above all, to protect the extraordinary opportunity that has come about to recast the international system. The North Atlantic nations, having understood their common dangers, can turn to a new definition of common purposes. Relations with former adversaries can go beyond liquidating the vestiges of the Cold War and find a new role for Russia in its post-imperial phase, and for China as it emerges into great power status. India is emerging as an important global player. After measurable success in the anti-terrorism campaign, when it does not appear as concession to the terrorists, the Middle East peace process should be urgently resumed. These and other prospects must not be allowed to vanish because those that have the ability to prevail shrink from what their opportunities require.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished Ambassador of Israel to the United States had a most personal and longstanding relationship with Israel's late, great Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. It is with deep reverence for what Yitzhak Rabin stood for that I share Ambassador Ivry's comments with my colleagues. Remarks of Israeli Ambassador David Ivry at the Memorial Service for Yitzhak and Leah Rabin Israeli Ambassador David Ivry It is with a heavy heart that I stand before you today, and pay tribute to a couple whose dedication to Israel brought us hope, whose efforts for peace renewed our vision of the future, and whose legacy will be remembered for generations to come. Yitzhak and Leah Rabin are no longer with us, but their memories are inscribed on the stones of history. Sustained in our hearts and minds forever. Leah was a supportive wife, a devoted mother, and a pillar of strength to those who knew her. Yitzhak was a man of integrity and vision. An honorable soldier whose greatest mission was his battle for peace. I first met Yitzhak in 1959. I was a young captain, and he, the Deputy Chief of General Staff, a respected leader and a critical asset to the IDF. Our paths frequently crossed again over the years until the day he approached me and requested that I return to the Ministry of Defense. I knew him in times of crisis and success. I found him to be a sensitive man, emotional to the point of tears at the loss of life; a leader who was not only attentive but knew how to listen. He had a piercing analytical understanding of the issues. He was a man who saw the minute details, without losing sight of the larger picture. Yitzhak Rabin--the man of security, who fought in battles and wars, Chief of Staff of IDF during the Six-Day War. As we mourn the loss of our fallen hero, we must remember, he dedicated his career to national defense, and his life to Israel's future. In fact, at the time of his assassination, Rabin served not only as Prime Minister, but also as the Minister of Defense. In 1986, I served as Director General of the Ministry of Defense, as per Rabin's request. I held this office for nearly ten years. Basically, because Rabin would not let me leave. At our weekly meeting on Friday, November third, nineteen ninety-five, I raised the issue of my resignation. I had served an unprecedented number of years as Director General, and I felt it was time to move on. Rabin understood my reasoning, but requested that I stay in that post. After deliberation, we decided to discuss this and other pending issues at our next meeting on Sunday, November fifth. Of course, that conversation never took place. With just three shots from an assassin, Yitzhak's potential as a leader was brought to an end. His life was cut short, and the future of the Middle East would never be the same again. Though his dreams have not become a reality, Rabin's vision for the future lives on. It is kept alive in the heart of each Israeli citizen and soldier who wishes to live in a land of security and peace. Over the past year, this dream has been marred by tragedy, sorrow, and pain. But amidst the broken pieces, the Israeli people have emerged united. Bonded by a unique determination and resolve. This resolve has been strengthened by the abiding relationship of Israel and the United States. For over half a century, we have stood together as true partners and friends. As a diplomat, general, and statesman, Yitzhak Rabin appreciated the unwavering support of the United States, its vital role in peace negotiations, and our joint efforts to maintain stability in the Middle East. Although regional stability has been shaken, the ties that bind us remain strong. As our two nations mourn the tragedy of September eleventh it is clear--the United States and Israel are forever partners in the pursuit of security and peace. This is just one element of the legacy left behind by Yitzhak Rabin. Though his leadership has come to an end, his message still remains. Today, we remember that peace is not just a dream. It is essential to our future, and the future of generations to come. Shalom haverim. Shalom friends. May the memory of Yitzhak and Leah be with us forever.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to San Mateo County native and former Pittsburgh Steeler, Lynn Swann, on his recent induction into the National Football League Hall of Fame. Enshrinement in the NFL Hall of Fame is the greatest honor of any football player's career and is only bestowed upon the most deserving athletes. Lynn is unequivocally one of the greatest wide receivers ever to play professional football and is most deserving of this honor. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, Lynn's NFL career spanned nine years, and included four Super Bowl victories and three Pro Bowl appearances. During his career, Lynn caught 364 passes for a total of 5,462 yards and 51 touchdowns. Known for his acrobatic and graceful catches, he saved his best performances for the big games, making key plays in Super Bowls IX, X, XIII, and XIV. Mr. Speaker, Lynn's football success got off to a spectacular start at Junipero Serra High School in San Mateo, California, in my Congressional district. He became a member of the Padres Varsity Squad as a Freshman where he was coached by Coach Jesse Freitas, Sr. Lynn was instrumental in Serra High School's 1967 and 1969 West Catholic Athletic League titles. After graduating from high school, Lynn attended the University of Southern California where his gridiron accomplishments brought him honors and recognition. He graduated with a degree in Public Relations in 1974. Lynn Swann was the number one draft pick by the Pittsburgh Steelers in 1974, and his impact on the team was felt in Pittsburgh immediately. During his rookie season Lynn immediately established himself as a fierce competitor. Although he suffered a concussion in the 1975 AFC Championship Game, he recovered in time for the Super Bowl two weeks later, giving a MVP performance. During Superbowl XIII, Lynn had yet another extraordinary performance, catching seven passes and the game winning touchdown. Mr. Speaker, Lynn has been the recipient of numerous awards and recognition during his career. He was named an All-American player at USC in 1974, and All-Pro recognitions in 1976, 1978, and 1979. He was named the Most Valuable Player of Super Bowl X in 1976. Lynn received the prestigious NAACP image award in 1981. He is a member of the Steelers Hall of Fame Team of the 1970's Decade, and the Silver Anniversary Super Bowl All-Time Team. He is also an inductee to the San Mateo County Sports Hall of Fame, and will be inducted into the Bay Area Sports Hall of Fame in 2002. Much of Lynn's success in life, both on and off the field, can be traced directly to his parents, Mildred and Willie Swann, who continue to work and maintain their residence in my district. His parents taught him the value of hard work, and more importantly, how to carry himself with class and dignity. Today, Lynn thanks his mother for urging him go to Serra High School and teaching him the value of a good education. Since his football career ended in 1982, Lynn Swann has been involved in numerous charitable involvements. These included his work as the National Spokesperson for the Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. Additionally, he created the Lynn Swann Youth Scholarship Fund in association with the Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre School. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, Lynn was one of the first wide receivers to practice ballet in preparation for football, a practice followed by numerous professional football players to this day. Lynn pioneered this unique ``cross training'' method after recognizing that the gracefulness of ballet would be a considerable asset to a wide receiver in the National Football League. In 1981, he created the Lynn Swann Youth Scholarship Fund in Association with the Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre school, which has benefitted hundreds of talented students. Lynn's commitment to the Ballet School continues to this day, by contributing a portion of the sales of his number 88 Pittsburgh Steelers jersey, to aid the Pittsburgh Ballet, as well as the Boys and Girls Club of Pittsburgh. Throughout his distinguished career both on and off the field, Lynn Swann has never forgotten nor neglected his close personal ties to San Mateo. He is, indeed, an icon and role model for our young people. Lynn Swann is an extraordinary athlete who is truly deserving of induction into the National Football League Hall of Fame. He has given selflessly of his time to worthy causes. Lynn's character can best be summed up by his former High School history teacher and coach, John Carboni, who, when asked about his former student, chose not to comment on his athletic ability, but rather on his personality. As Mr. Carboni stated, ``When it comes to a classy athlete to come out of Serra, Lynn Swann rules the roost.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Lynn Swann, an excellent athlete on his enshrinement in the National Football Hall of Fame.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, at a singularly moving memorial service for the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and his lifelong partner Leah at the Embassy of Israel, our former distinguished Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, spoke eloquently and with deep feeling about the contribution of this extraordinary couple, to peace and civilized life in the turbulent Middle East. I am delighted to share with my colleagues Dr. Albright's remarks. Address of Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at the Memorial Service of Yitzhak and Leah Rabin Ambassador Ivry, Sara Ehreman, distinguished guests and friends, I am honored to be here with you tonight. Many of you had the privilege of knowing former Prime Minister Rabin better than I, but I do have some wonderful memories of my own about this warrior who made a strategic decision for peace. I met the Rabins when he served as Ambassador here, and we had a number of encounters when I was UN Ambassador, some formal, some less so. I kept a picture of the two of us at dinner in New York, in my office throughout my tenure as Ambassador and Secretary. In my mind, however, the most dramatic picture of him was on that September day on the White House lawn, when he at first reluctantly and then firmly shook hands with Chairman Arafat. As he would say, you do not make peace with your friend. Although by the time I knew Yitzhak Rabin, he had gray hair; I fully understand why Leah had years before fallen in love with a man with a full head of hair and what she described as ``the eyes of David.'' He still had those amazing eyes. Four years ago, when I made my first major speech on the Middle East, I wore this pin, shaped like a dove, a gift from Leah. Soon thereafter, I saw her in Israel, and she gave me this necklace, along with a note saying that sometimes a dove needs reinforcements. So I am in debt to the Rabins, but for far more than the jewelry. I will not presume to speak for any of you, but for myself. I am in debt to Yitzhak Rabin for what he has given me, which is an abiding and perhaps illogical sense of hope. In my new life, I still give speeches, and am expected to make sense, even about the Middle East. But I have begun to think, ``what is there left to say?'' Remember what King Hussein called for that day in Aqaba when Israel and Jordan made peace? ``No more death, no more misery, no more suspicion, no more fear, no more uncertainty of what each day may bring.'' Seven years later, what is it we have, except death, misery, suspicion, fear and uncertainty of what each day may bring? If there is any answer to that question it is the example of Yitzhak Rabin. The former Prime Minister was no dreamer or sentimentalist. He was a doer and a realist. No one was more dedicated to Israel's survival, security and success. No one was more rigorous in drawing the distinction between right and wrong. No one was more fiercely patriotic on Israel's behalf. And no Israeli leader, before or since, has inspired such trust among Palestinians and Arabs. It is making too much of one man to believe that if Rabin were still here, it would all be different. But how I wish we could test that hypothesis. I suspect, however, that if he WERE here tonight, he would scoff and tell us that our responsibility is not to honor him, or to think about what might have been. Our responsibility is to clean up the mess we are now in. He would tell us, Israeli and American, to put aside any differences we might have, and to stand together, with all who love freedom and cherish peace, to defeat terror, and conquer the hate outside us while preventing its growth within us. He would remind us that our common fate is in our hands. Our common inspiration is in the history of resilience and determination that characterize our two nations. Our common strength is in our shared faith that free people working together can achieve miracles. According to scripture there is a season to everything. Now is not the season for pious platitudes and empty words. It is a time of testing, of walking through the wilderness, of avoiding the sinking sand, and searching for solid rock. And yet, as we gather here tonight to honor a man, share memories, and rededicate ourselves to the principles for which he died, we are not afraid; we are confident, because we know from experiences what terror can and cannot do. Terror can turn life to death, laughter to tears, and shared hopes to sorrowful memories. It can destroy a marketplace and bring down towers that scraped the sky. It can even cause us to hold our breath while opening an envelope. But it cannot deprive us of our love for liberty or our solidarity with one another; it cannot make us retreat from our responsibilities or abandon our commitments; it cannot drive a wedge between America and Israel; and it will not prevail. Last night we turned our clocks back a single hour, marking the end of daylight savings time. It's all we have the power to do. We cannot turn back the calendar to September the eleventh, 2001, or November the fourth, 1995. We cannot alter the past. We cannot bring back the countrymen and leaders we have lost. We have no choice but to face reality. But we CAN choose to be animated by hope, not fear; to acknowledge the presence of evil in this world, but never lose sight of the good; to endure terrible blows, but never give in to those who would have us betray our principles or surrender our ideals. We can choose the path that we know in our hearts would have been chosen by Yitzhak Rabin. The path of strength matched by compassion, of courage reinforced by faith. By so doing, we can be sure that the perpetrators of terror will fail in whatever purpose they have; and that America, Israel and all who love freedom will continue toward our rightful purpose of creating a more just and peaceful future for us and for all people.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Mrs. Geri Coombs, who is retiring from the California Teachers Association (CTA) after 25 years of dedicated service. I had the distinct pleasure of hiring Geri when I was involved with the CTA. I knew then, that Geri's arrival would be a great benefit to the CTA, and that judgment has been confirmed. For the last twenty years Geri has been the Associate Executive Director and Controller of the California Teachers Association. During that time she has guided the Association from humble roots with an uncertain future to a strong and vibrant association that has become a model of financial stability for non-profits across the country. Under her direction the CTA Business Division was reorganized, resulting in both renewed financial success and a restored confidence in the future reliability of the Association. All who have had the privilege of working with this dedicated woman share my confidence in her extraordinary leadership and vision. Mr. Speaker, in addition to her outstanding financial insight, Geri's understanding to the goals of the CTA has given her a unique ability to allocate and direct resources to meet the many and diverse needs of the CTA. Among Geri's many successes at the CTA was the successful balancing of the demand for CTA services and resources from both large urban and small rural chapters. In addition it was Geri's important role as a management consultant to the CTA Board bargaining team that was instrumental to ensuring the trust and respect of both professional and associate staff unions, thereby solidifying the integrity of the process. Geri is respected by all who deal with her, as her colleagues stated in their glowing tribute of her: ``No CTA member has been called upon more often to solve seemingly insurmountable problems and no CTA staff member will be missed more as she moves onward and upward to a most deserved retirement.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a tireless worker, a financial wizard, and an outstanding person on the conclusion of her extraordinary career with the California Teachers Association.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I first would like to thank my dear friend and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, for yielding. I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my friend, neighbor, and whip-elect, for bringing this resolution to the floor. I am truly delighted that my training, Mr. Speaker, is in economics, because a knowledge of statistics is indispensable in dealing with this giant in American politics. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to urge all of my colleagues to join the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and me in supporting House Resolution 266, which congratulates Barry Bonds for his achievement in breaking the major league baseball record for home runs in a single season, and to thank him for his contributions both to baseball and our community. On October 7 of this year, in beautiful PacBell Stadium in San Francisco, Barry Bonds hit his 73rd home run. This took him past Mark McGuire's previous record of 70 home runs in a single season. In addition, Barry also broke Babe Ruth's record for slugging average, once thought to be untouchable. Mr. Speaker, Barry Bonds did not merely eclipse Ruth's record; he shattered it, setting the new average 16 points above the previous mark. He also set the major league record for walks, drawing 177, a testament to the fear he instilled in opposing pitchers. Mr. Speaker, at the end of this year's baseball season, Barry Bonds had finished in the top 10 in four major offensive statistical categories: home runs, batting average, runs batted in, and runs scored. He finished the season in seventh place on the all time home run list with 567 career home runs, and I can relate to that, Mr. Speaker. He became the oldest player in major league history to hit more than 50, 60 or 70 home runs in a single season. This dazzling offensive output is what the fans of the San Francisco Giants as well as baseball fans around the Nation have come to expect from this three- time National League Most Valuable Player. This past Sunday, Barry's peers added yet another accolade to his resume: 2001 Players' Choice Player of the Year. Mr. Speaker, I say this with local pride, but I firmly believe that Barry Bonds' talents can be traced to the fact that he grew up in San Mateo, California, which, I might add, is at the very heart of my own congressional district. His domination of the baseball diamond at Sierra High School in San Mateo is legendary to this very day. Barry grew up around baseball and from a young age he showed star potential. Both Barry's father Bobby and his godfather, Willie Mays, were professional baseball players. In addition to his baseball exploits, Barry Bonds has been actively involved in community and public service. Since September 11 he has donated $100,000 to the fund to aid the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. His generous contribution was matched by both major league baseball and the San Francisco Giants, bringing the total of $300,000 for the assistance of the victims of this horrific tragedy. Barry's involvement in the community also includes the Barry Bonds family foundation, which he established 7 years ago, which is headed by his mother, Pat Bonds. The foundation supports activities and programs to improve education and quality of life for the Bay Area's African American youth. The foundation also supports other charities, such as the Adopt a Special Kid Program and the Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital. Both Barry Bonds and his foundation are also involved in the United Way's ``Link and Learn'' program. This educational program focuses on raising student achievement by increasing parent involvement, access to tutoring, and exposure to interactive educational technology among low-income children and their families. Mr. Speaker, it is crystal clear that Barry Bonds is an exceptional baseball player, and he used his celebrity and talents to benefit our community. I encourage all of our colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution, which appropriately honors Barry Bonds for his record- breaking achievement.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing the remarkable accomplishments of a budding organization dedicated to the empowerment and unity of youth throughout the Balkan region. The Balkans Youth Link has emerged from the devastation of war to create a positive future for young people in that region. This San Francisco-based nonprofit organization, which was founded by a constituent of mine, Frederica Bunge, provides support to youth leaders of the Balkans who are working to develop a truly free society. These strive for openness and understanding in a place where ethnic conflict has long challenged hopes for peace. Since its inception in late 1999, Balkans Youth Link has accomplished many important projects worthy of our attention. When the conflict in Kosovo ended, two trauma recovery missions sent teams to rural and urban areas in order to create self-support groups, helping teachers recover from their own trauma and enabling them to give their students a renewed interest in learning. Last summer, Youth Link 2000, the first international public debate camp, which was conceived and directed by Enrion Veliaj, successfully trained a diverse group of young people from Kosovo in the techniques of public debate. There the participants gained a broad understanding of the importance of free speech, diversity of ideas, and respect for human rights. Also during the summer of 2000, a love of music and a desire for peace united in New York City a group of Serb, Croat, and Muslim youth from Bosnia. Balkans Youth Link Voices spent a month together, rehearsing, performing, and sharing their vision for a peaceful society. The choral group gave a number of excellent performances, including one at the closing luncheon of the State of the World Forum, where they received a standing ovation for their world premier performance of One Song, Many Voices, by Marcus Williams, written for Nelson Mandela's 2001 initiative on diversity. Mr. Speaker, the latest endeavor of Balkans Youth Link is an international Youth Link Leadership Institute held in Kosovo in August of this year. The project provided community leaders and students with an opportunity for an exchange of ideas on the crucial issues of conflict resolution, advocacy, negotiation, and leadership in a variety of contexts. The leadership institute was designed to create socially conscious citizens and to motivate them toward leadership and activism. The hard work and dedication of the director and staff of Youth Link Leadership Institute deserves our commendation. Project Director Erion Veliaj and coordinators Kujesa Bejtullahu and Sagita Muco have been actively involved for several years in humanitarian relief and democracy building activities. In addition to directing Youth Link 2000, Mr. Veliaj led an election mobilization campaign under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, (OSCE) in preparation for the first local elections in Kosovo. In addition he has headed several other major leadership and open society projects involving Balkan youth in other parts of the globe. Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues may recall that Ms. Behtullahu had been called the Anne Frank of Kosovo for her ``From the War Zone'' e-mail correspondence with a California high school student, using the pen name ``Adona.'' Each of these leaders has witnessed the atrocity and anguish of war in the Balkans, and they hope to rebuild their communities by educating future generations about the impact of social activism and democratic politics. Balkans Youth Link coordinators and volunteers, along with their founding Board Members, Frederica Bunge, strive to inspire a sense of self-worth and a realization of individual power and value in society. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the persistent crusade for tolerance and understanding which is stressed by Balkans Youth Link. It is an invaluable contribution to a peaceful future for the Balkans.

Mr. LANTOS

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

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.

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

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), one of the leaders in this field of legislation. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)