Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who has been the leader on this issue on our side.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has been a fighter for children across the globe during her distinguished career here in this body.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. No, Mr. Speaker. I am strongly in support of this legislation.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I rise in strong support of this legislation. First, I want to commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), for his leadership on this issue, and indeed on so many other matters. Mr. Speaker, the terrorist organization known as the Lord's Resistance Army has turned northern Uganda into a living hell for the Acholi people, and particularly their children, for years now. Under the ruthless and delusional leadership of Joseph Kony, this terrorist organization maintains a vicious hit-and-run guerrilla war with the Ugandan government where the overwhelming casualties are the Acholi people, particularly kidnapped boys and girls. While Kony invokes the name of God in his unholy war against innocent civilians, it has been the backing of the Sudanese government in Khartoum that has kept this war going for so many years. Several months ago, our committee hosted a young woman, Grace Akallo, who was abducted by this terrorist group at age 13 and was forced to live as a sex slave. As part of her induction, she, along with other girls, were forced to beat an old woman to death. After living that nightmare, she then was taken to southern Sudan, trained by the Arabs, as she called them, and forced to fight for Khartoum against the Sudanese People's Liberation Army. Grace escaped this terrorist group and the Sudanese forces, and on her own made her way to a safe place in Uganda. She will be going to school next year here in the United States. However, as moving and heroic as Grace's story is, it is the extreme exception. The more common and familiar story for a young Acholi girl captured by this terrorist outfit is rape, other physical brutality, slavery, and a broken life. Mr. Speaker, with approval of this resolution today, Congress will stand fast in the face of the horrors perpetrated directly or indirectly by Khartoum by demanding an end to the conflict in northern Uganda. We will also strongly signal to the administration and to the international community that every possible step must be taken to protect peace and the security of these children. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers on this side, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

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

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, during my entire 24 years in Congress, it has been my great pleasure to serve with my good friend and colleague from Nebraska, Congressman Doug Bereuter. As Doug is serving his last term in the House before assuming the Presidency of the Asia Foundation, I would like to take a few moments to share my thoughts on such an exceptional Member of Congress. For the past 26 years in Congress, Doug has been a highly respected expert on American foreign policy, and has developed an immense network of national and international leaders who seek out his views on the global issues facing us today. For the more than two decades that we have served together on the International Relations Committee, Doug has been rewarded with increasingly important leadership roles. He served as Ranking Minority Member when I was serving as Chair of the Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations and Human Rights in the early 1990s. A few years later, I served as Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific when Doug served as Chair. Doug played a critical role in the key foreign policy debates in the International Relations Committee, always fighting for the responsible, internationalist position on important global issues. Colleagues on the Committee relied upon Doug because they knew he had done his homework, paid attention to the details, and consulted with the world's leading experts before pursuing an initiative. Doug has always been, and will continue to be, an invaluable resource for other Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, Doug's influence on American foreign policy, however, far transcends his important role in the International Relations Committee. Since 1986, Doug has served as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which is the inter-parliamentary organization of legislators from the member countries of the NATO Alliance as well as Association NATO Members. Just two years ago, Doug was elected President of that important body--a measure of the high respect world leaders have for him. In that capacity he has played an important role in the NATO enlargement process. He personally visited every new member state and worked to assist these countries make the transition. In this position, Doug has brought credit, not only to himself, but to all of us who serve in the United States Congress. Doug has also worked tirelessly to involve other Members of Congress in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. He lobbied other NATO parliamentarians to ensure that at least three other U.S. Members were able to hold leadership roles in that body. CODELs to these meetings always included some 10-15 Members who were well prepared and involved, thanks in part to Doug's personal involvement and encouragement. Doug has also been exceptionally loyal to his staff, many of whom have worked with him for decades. This is a tribute to his kindness, consideration and respect of others. And as a result, Doug has maintained one of the most effective and well connected staffs on Capitol Hill. Doug and Louise will be greatly missed here in Washington, but we are pleased to learn that he will be residing in the Bay Area and leading an exceptionally-important institution, the Asia Foundation. We hope to continue our friendship and working relationship as he embarks on this new venture. Annette and I both wish him and Louise well.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, Thomas Klestil, President of the Republic of Austria, passed away just two days before he was to turn over the office of President to his elected successor. President Klestil was a man of distinction whom I knew, admired and considered a friend. Thomas Klestil was born in Vienna in 1932, the youngest of five children of a tram driver. After completing a doctorate in economics and business in 1957, he entered the Austrian diplomatic service. Some 18 years of his diplomatic career of 35 years was spent in the United States, first as a junior diplomat in Washington and later as Consul General in Los Angeles, Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, and then as Ambassador to the United States here in Washington. I worked with him during the time he served as Ambassador in Washington. Following his election as President, I met with him in Vienna on more than one occasion. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Klestil was elected to the office of President at a difficult time in Austria's post-World War II history. His predecessor as Austrian President was Kurt Waldheim, former Secretary General of the United Nations. Austria's international reputation was severely damaged by the disclosure that Waldheim had lied about his Nazi military service during World War II. Klestil played an important role in helping to restore Austria's image, and in acknowledging and taking steps to remedy the ugly taint of Austria's Nazi past. He spoke out numerous times about Austria's complicity with the Nazi regime during World War II, and he expressed sympathy and regret for the victims of the Holocaust. During an official visit to Israel in 1994, he spoke before the Israeli Knesset and reaffirmed a statement made by Chancellor Franz Vranitzky in 1991 acknowledging the responsibility of Austrians in the Holocaust and admitting that Austrians were not only victims, but also active collaborators with Hitler's regime. Mr. Speaker, although Klestil was elected President as the candidate of the Austrian People's Party, he clashed with the party leader Wolfgang Schossel. He was critical of Schossel's decision to form a coalition government with the far-right Freedom Party of Jorg Haider in 2000. Several months of international diplomatic sanctions against Austria resulted from the formation of that government. Though the role of Austrian President is largely ceremonial and representational, Klestil demonstrated his disapproval of the coalition government with the Freedom Party by publicly exhibiting stern disdain as he ceremonially swore the new government into office. He later stated in an interview, ``The Freedom Party is not a Nazi party, but, unfortunately, the highest officials of this party continue to use a language which disqualifies them for every political office.'' President Klestil also played an important role in strengthening Austria's ties with the Central European states emerging from almost half a century of Soviet domination. In 1993, the year after his election, he began convening yearly meetings with the heads of state of these new democracies, which strengthened their ties with Austria and also helped the new governments to strengthen their commitment to democratic principles. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in expressing our most sincere condolences to the family of President Thomas Klestil and to the people of Austria on the death of this principled statesman, who has done so much to foster positive relations with the United States and to help his country and its people deal with their past.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Robust debate is the hallmark of this body and this afternoon we had a sampling of it for which we are all pleased. The difficulty in dealing with the issues that we face in this world is that we do not confront elegant alternatives but exasperating realities. It is in that context that I wish to quote from the person who will be the nominee of the Democratic Party at the upcoming convention on his views of this resolution and of this undertaking. I am quoting from Senator Kerry: ``While we may have differed on how we went to war, Americans of all political persuasions are united in our determination to succeed. The extremists attacking our forces should know that they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops. Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected President in November, we will persevere in that mission.'' Mr. Speaker, these are difficult days for our country, but we stand united in our commitment to our troops and in our commitment to our values. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), our distinguished colleague.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), my friend and a distinguished colleague.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), my good friend.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, before recognizing our next speaker, I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his leadership on this resolution and on this entire issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of H. Res. 691. On June 30, a momentous date in the history of Iraq, after 45 years of dictatorship and one year of occupation, a sovereign government representative of the Iraqi people is about to assume power in Baghdad. We take justifiable pride in the U.S. role in achieving that milestone, and we pay tribute to our soldiers who have achieved this incredible feat. But there is no fooling ourselves, Mr. Speaker. The Iraq that Prime Minister Iyad al-Alawi and his colleagues will inherit is far from stable and it is far from prosperous, nor is it ready to assume full responsibility for its Nation's security. For the United States, the challenges of ensuring security, promoting reconstruction, and fostering liberal and decent governance will continue essentially unchanged for now. Whether we and the Iraqis look back at June 30, 2004 as an historic turning point for the good will be determined by our joint ability to meet those ongoing and gigantic challenges. Mr. Speaker, developments on our home front encourage the hope that we can meet those challenges, as the positions on Iraq taken by leaders of both of our parties are fundamentally congruent. The administration has shown signs that it is willing to alter the course when necessary in order to get the job done. I am pleased that the President embraced the wisdom of acknowledging a major role for the United Nations. As a result of the United Nations unanimously-adopted resolution, the soon- to-be sovereign Iraqi government will have far greater domestic and international legitimacy than otherwise it would have. I think it is important to underscore that the likely nominee of the Democratic Party for president, Senator Kerry, shares the basic vision, and I quote: ``While we may have differed on how we went to war, Americans of all political persuasions are united in our determination to succeed. The extremists attacking our forces should know that they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops. Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful, and pluralistic society.'' The most important line in my quotation from Senator Kerry is as follows: ``No matter who is elected President in November, we will persevere in that mission.'' Mr. Speaker, success in Iraq is a bipartisan, national interest. Not only is the credibility of the United States at stake in the region and around the globe, but an Iraq collapsing into chaos would be a heart of darkness in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, Senator Kerry and President Bush are also on the same page in calling on our NATO allies to show solidarity by reinforcing our efforts in Iraq. Even though NATO nations may not have many deployable troops to spare, there is nevertheless much that they can do to. And the opportunity for NATO to make these important decisions in the highest-profile manner possible will present itself next week at the NATO summit in Istanbul. As the NATO Secretary General said, we have a Security Council resolution, a fully legitimate interim government in Iraq; NATO has no excuse to slam the door in Iraq's face. NATO States can and must provide training for the new Iraqi Army, and they should do so in Iraq itself without requiring Iraqi troops to go to a third country as some are suggesting. One of the most brilliant of our military leaders, General David Petraeus, is leading the U.S. effort to train Iraqi forces, and his presence in that role should give all of us confidence in our ultimate success. But building a fighting force capable of defeating Iraq's fundamentalists and Saddamist thugs is a mammoth undertaking. NATO nations are ideally positioned to support the efforts of General Petraeus. NATO troops can provide election security to support the all- important Iraqi elections in January. If Iraq is to hold its first free and democratic elections in its history, security is paramount. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The European members of NATO, all of them, should not contribute to Iraq's security as a favor to us, even though the peace and prosperity that reigns in Europe today was won with American blood and American treasure. They should do it as a favor to themselves but, most importantly, to the Iraqi people. Europe's stake in the stability of Iraq and the Middle East is greater than our own. Europe borders the Middle East and is far more dependent on its energy resources than are we here in the United States. Europe's moral credibility is also at stake in Iraq. For years, the States of the European Union, most of whom belong to NATO, have trumpeted their commitment to democracy. Now it is time for them to prove that this is more than rhetoric. When Iraqi President al-Yawar was in town recently, he told a group of us that the presence of European troops is crucial to Iraq. He emphasized that Iraq needs security forces from law-abiding societies where human rights are valuable to the people. Mr. Speaker, Iraq is undertaking history's boldest experiment in trying to build a more free and open society. If Europe is not with us, its message to the Iraqi people and to the world is that it just does not care about democratic developments outside its borders. I call on President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder and other reluctant NATO leaders to stand up at the Istanbul summit and be counted on behalf of the Iraqi people and democratic values. Mr. Speaker, we already have many fine allies, NATO and nonNATO alike, in our coalition in Iraq. Tony Blair's United Kingdom has shown extraordinary courage and leadership. South Korea's determination was tested by tragedy just this week, and it proved itself a model of resolve. These nations are doing work from which all of Europe will benefit, and they too deserve Europe's, and that means NATO's, backing and help. As the loyal opposition, we Democrats will continue to call this administration to account for its errors in Iraq. We will continue to offer constructive advice, as our duty demands, particularly from our position of oversight authority in the legislative branch. But all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, are united in our commitment to achieving success in giving rise to a durable, pluralistic, more open and free society in Iraq. It is not merely a simple matter of restoring sovereignty. George Bernard Shaw observed, ``Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.'' The new stewards of the sovereign Iraq will prove that they are up to the task. As they do, we want them to know that we will stand by them. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution, and I urge all of my colleagues to do so. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on this resolution be extended for 20 minutes, to be equally divided between the two sides.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished Democratic Leader for her powerful and eloquent statement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), my good friend.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the distinguished Democratic whip for his powerful and eloquent statement. I rise in strong support of this historic resolution, Mr. Speaker. Our resolution represents a unique, bipartisan effort to demonstrate congressional support for the State of Israel and for Middle East peace by endorsing Prime Minister Sharon's bold disengagement plan. Even before this resolution was introduced, expressions of bipartisan resolve regarding its core principles were already well on their way. President Bush warmly welcomed Prime Minister Sharon's plan and reaffirmed this Nation's strong support for Israel and for Middle East peace in his letter of April 14. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee for President, in turn endorsed both Prime Minister Sharon's proposal and the content of the President's letter. In setting out some of the principles of peace such as those relating to territory and refugees, the President was clearly inspired by ideas presented during the Camp David negotiations in the summer of 2000 and by President Clinton's so-called ``Parameters'' of December, 2000. Thus like President Bush's April 14 letter, the resolution now before us distills the ideas of some of our Nation's most respected figures in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Many of the principles in the resolution have been endorsed previously, some of them repeatedly by the Congress. All of them are crucial to achieving Middle East peace. Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Sharon has taken a bold risk and shown great courage in pursuing his plan for unilateral withdrawal from all of Gaza and parts of the West Bank. He did so because he believed it was the only way to break a deadlock in the peace process and to forge a historic path towards the separation of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples which is the prerequisite for a two-state solution. The prime minister decided that Middle East peace could no longer be held hostage to the failure of Palestinian leadership. Prime Minister Sharon has pursued his plan despite repeated political obstacles. The Israeli people as a whole overwhelmingly embrace his initiative, but many of his traditional allies do not. In fact, Mr. Sharon's plan was defeated in a referendum of his own Likud parties membership. He has been forced to fire some members of his cabinet in order to assure cabinet support for the plan. Other ministers have resigned in protest. Mr. Sharon has lost his once formidable parliamentary majority and now leads a minority government. Perhaps most painfully for him, he has parted ways with a settlement movement that he once unofficially led. As one senior U.S. official recently expressed it to me, ``A year ago we would have been shocked and pleased if Sharon had decided to dismantle one single settlement. Now he insists on dismantling two dozen.'' Mr. Speaker, I met with Prime Minister Sharon in his office in Jerusalem a month ago. As critics were pronouncing his plan finished, he was buoyantly optimistic and firmly committed to overcoming opposition to his plan. He told me he would prevail in the cabinet, and now he has. There are more steps required before implementation, but Mr. Sharon is committed to the battle, and, in my view, he is fully up to the task. Mr. Speaker, the Israeli people have endured considerable heartbreak in the peace process. They were stunned and many still are, as are we, that an inexcusable Palestinian intifada erupted 4 years ago in the wake of an incredibly generous Israeli peace offer. That intifada, with its repeated suicide bombings, has claimed nearly 1,000 innocent Israeli lives. Proportional to the U.S. population, that would be 50,000 lives lost at the hands of domestic terrorism. Nevertheless, another Israeli leader has embarked on yet another bold and politically precarious peace initiative. That initiative deserves the support of the Congress. So does the vast majority of the Israeli people who, polls show, support the Sharon plan. And the Palestinian people deserve this body's support. They have endured all kinds of hardships, including incompetent, cynical, and violent leadership that has led them to the edge of the abyss. Mr. Speaker, what we will do here today will reverberate throughout the Middle East. By strongly supporting Israeli security and this new initiative, we will embolden Israeli leaders to take further key and courageous steps toward the Middle East peace all sides desire, even in the face of spirited domestic opposition. And hopefully moderate Palestinians will be encouraged to push aside their failed authoritarian leadership and take control of their own lives. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of a secure Israel, increased hope for Palestinians, and the all-important peace in the Middle East, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip, who played a critical role in the drafting of this important resolution.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), one of our great Democratic leaders.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and fellow Californian, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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

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

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