Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I join my distinguished colleague from Utah, Mr. Matheson, the other members of the Utah delegation, and all of my colleagues in this body in mourning the passing of our former colleague, Congressman Wayne Owens of Utah. I consider it an honor to have known him and to have served with him. Wayne and I served on the International Relations Committee during his second term of service in this House from 1987 until 1993. I visited Wayne's congressional district in Salt Lake City at his request to assist with his reelection. My relationship with Wayne, however, went back much further than our association here in this House. In the 1960s he served as a legislative aide to Senator Frank E. Moss of Utah, and later he was the Administrative Assistant to Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. I also served on the staff of other members of the Senate while Wayne was working there. Mr. Speaker, Wayne and I stood together on many issues before the International Relations Committee--from seeking to bring peace in the Middle East to dealing with the momentous changes taking place in Central Europe and the former Soviet Union. We also worked together on many other issues that were before the Congress--from protecting our nation's fragile environment to seeking the welfare of the working men and women of our country. Mr. Speaker, Wayne Owens was a man of conviction, who took action that he thought was right despite the personal consequences. During his first term in the House of Representatives, he served on the Judiciary Committee and cast his vote for the impeachment of then-President Richard M. Nixon. Not long after that important vote, he ran for an open seat in the United States Senate but lost. He blamed his defeat on that Judiciary Committee vote because President Nixon remained popular in Utah. Wayne also worked on environmental legislation to protect the incomparable Utah wilderness and to reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone National Park--issues that many in his home state did not support. He voted against authorizing the use of military force against Iraq in 1991. I greatly admire Wayne for his determination to act as he thought right, despite the personal consequences. Mr. Speaker, both before and after his congressional service, Wayne was committed to working for peace and reconciliation in the Middle East. In 1989 he joined my friend S. Daniel Abraham, the former Chairman of Slim Fast Foods, to establish the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation. After his loss in the Utah Senate election in 1992, Wayne devoted a great deal of his time to the Center, and he was a frequent visitor to Arab States and Israel. On many occasions he traveled with Members of Congress to that region in an effort to increase understanding of regional problems and to seek solutions through economic cooperation. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in acknowledging the contributions of Wayne Owens to our nation, to this House, and to the cause of better understanding between peoples of the world. He was a remarkable and a dedicated man, and we all join in expressing our condolences to Marlene, his devoted wife of 41 years, and to his five children and 14 grandchildren.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with our colleagues in the US House of Representatives a speech given by the former Norwegian Supreme Court Chief Justice; the Honorable Carsten Smith to the Congressional Friends of Norway Caucus on Thursday, September 26. In his speech Chief Justice Smith outlined a Scandinavian perspective on Constitutional and International Human Rights--a highly relevant topic in light of the post-September 11 era. While the legal development in our country and Europe have not been completely congruent, Chief Justice Smith's thoughtful comments deserve bear examination. Chief Justice Smith, who has served on the Norwegian Supreme Court from 1987 until his retirement in 2001 and served as the Courts Chief Justice since 1991, has had a distinguished and impressive legal career for close to half a decade, and is considered a legend in the Norwegian legal community. Carsten Smith, who was born in Oslo in 1932, received his law degree from the University of Oslo in 1956 and earned his doctorate in law shortly thereafter. He is married to Mrs. Lucy Smith, also a distinguished professor of law at the University of Oslo, and they have three children. Carsten Smith was appointed Professor of Law at the University of Oslo in 1964. During his life-long career at the University, Chief Justice Smith has served in a number of positions. He served as the Dean of the Faculty of Law, and the President of the University of Oslo. Chief Justice Smith has also published a large number of articles and books in the field of international law, constitutional law, administrative and private law. Chief Justice Smith is also the recipient of numerous academic memberships and honors as well as the Commander and Knight of several Orders. Throughout his career Chief Justice Smith worked tirelessly on advancing the rights of minorities and human rights, and chaired both the Saami Rights Commission and the Commission on Human Rights in Norwegian legislation. Mr. Speaker, I commend Chief Justice Carsten Smith for his outstanding career in the legal field, and ask that Chief Justice Smith's speech be placed in the Record. Scandinavian Perspective on Constitutional and International Human Rights (By Norwegian Chief Justice Carsten Smith) The United States Supreme Court has for a long period been a source of inspiration for European legal thinking, including my own work, even though one may disagree with specific decisions. During my time both as a law professor and as a judge I have eagerly studied literature on this Court, and referred to it so often, that this fact was even commented on by the Attorney General in a public speech on my retirement from the Bench. The theme today will in the first place be how judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation--a principle created by the US Supreme Court--has taken roots across the Atlantic. Moreover, I shall show how this review in the last decades--and especially the most recent years--has been enlarged to also embrace the conformity of legislation with treaty-based human rights. In the title of the speech the concept of human rights is used to cover constitutional civil rights and liberties as well as international rights and freedoms. While speaking about judicial constitutional review here in the United States might have the character of preaching to the Pope, the extension of the review of legislation, requiring its compliance with human rights conventions, might be regarded as a further development spearheaded by Europe. One may consider this either as an extension of the original United States constitutional law concept, or as a European development in contrast to American constitutionalism. It concerns the responsibility for implementation of treaty- based human rights on the national arena. The constitutional civil rights and liberties have been supplemented with international human rights and freedoms, and the power to give binding interpretation of the main convention--the European Convention on Human Rights--has been transferred to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Norway's Constitution of 1814 is the oldest written constitution in Europe still in effect today, probably the second oldest worldwide next to the United States Constitution. The Norwegian practice of judicial review is also the oldest in Europe, perhaps the second oldest worldwide next to the United States practice. The Constitution makes no explicit mention of judicial review, quite in conformity with European constitutional thinking of that period. This review arose--as in the United States--from the practice of the Supreme Court itself. The United States Supreme Court's decision in Marbury versus Madison represents one of the landmark cases in Western legal thinking. The closest comparable Norwegian decision was a case between a naval officer and the naval authorities of 1866. It was the Chief Justice who raised the issue of judicial review and gave the answer in the most unambiguous way, namely--and you can almost hear the voice of John Marshall--``that inasmuch as the courts of law cannot be required to judge according to both laws simultaneously, they must necessarily give priority to the Constitution''. This Norwegian constitutional adjudication remained a relatively well-kept secret in an international perspective, effectively protected by linguistic barriers. For more than fifty years the Norwegian court practice formed a single and secret bridgehead in Europe of the US legal model. The further international development was of limited significance until after World War II, but when it came, it came hard and fast. After 1945 Germany and Italy set up constitutional courts, followed by a widespread blossoming of successive similar courts throughout Europe--particularly after the fall of the communist regimes. The pendulum has been swinging in Norwegian practice through the generations--as in the United States--between judicial activism and restraint. This might be a theme in itself. But let me mention how these judicial review powers became a spiritual weapon used by the Supreme Court in wartime. After two months of fighting in 1940, the King with the government withdrew to London and continued their war effort from there. The Supreme Court remained in Norway, but came soon into conflict with the German leader of the occupying forces, who declared in a threatening way that it was outside the jurisdiction of the Court to review the decisions of the occupying authorities. The Court answered that under constitutional law the Norwegian courts had a legal duty to review the validity of all laws and administrative orders, and in the same way they were entitled to review the validity under international law of orders issued by the organs of the occupying forces. As a protest against this interference all the members of the Supreme Court resigned their offices, an action that fueled the people's sentiment for resistance, and the Chief Justice subsequently became leader of both the civilian and military resistance movement. In the decades after the war the Court has on a number of occasions made use of its powers, and legal theory has used the term renaissance in conjunction with judicial review. But now also a supplementing of this review can be achieved by applying the European Convention on Human Rights from 1950 and the two United Nations Covenants from 1966. In 1999 the Norwegian Parliament passed an Act--called the Human Rights Act--that incorporated these three most basic conventions on human rights into Norwegian law. At the same time, the Act reinforced these rights through a priority clause whereby, in the event of conflict with other legislation, the provisions of these three conventions are to take priority over the legislation. By this enlargement of the judicial review there has been a certain transfer of power--some would say considerable--from the executive to the judiciary; and at the same time from the national to the European judiciary. All the members of the Council of Europe, more than forty, have now incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights. Even in England that has no written constitution and where the constitutional structure is based on the sovereignty of Parliament, their Human Rights Act of 1998 empowers the courts to determine whether a provision of legislation is compatible with a Convention right. After Russia also joined the Council, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has now an area of jurisdiction spanning from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I emphasize that this is not the Court of the European Union in Luxembourg, as Norway has twice doggedly refused to become a member of that union. A leading Norwegian decision of June 2000 laid down unanimously that the national courts must apply the result of an interpretation of the Convention even if established national legislation or practice will be set aside. Some further decisions in May this year have even emphasized the trend of moving the judicial power more towards Strasbourg. The cases concerned--what some may find surprising in this field of law--certain taxation matters. It has been a long- term administrative practice, built on statutory law, that the tax authorities may, in case of fraudulent information from the taxpayer, impose an additional tax of thirty to sixty percent. At the same time the courts may, by way of ordinary criminal trial, pronounce a sentence either before or after the administrative decision. This has gone on through the years without any objection from the legal milieu, as the tax reaction was regarded to be a civil, non- criminal, sanction. However, on the basis of very recent Strasbourg decisions the Supreme Court now found this to be a double criminal liability for the same actions and in breach of the convention rules on the right not to be tried or punished twice for the same offence. These decisions will probably have a wide range effect as a step in the march towards Strasbourg. The Supreme Court decisions interfered rather profoundly in a lawful established national administration, and moreover, the decisions were not based on a clear precedent from the European Court, but merely on the reasoning of cases not quite parallel. It is also of importance in this respect that a human rights text should be construed as such. This means that it shall not be interpreted as an ordinary treaty rule, where the principle of state sovereignty may have some impact, but shall be effectively regarded as a defence of the individual against the state. Where is then the borderline for the Strasbourg impact? The Court of Norway has drawn the guideline that in cases of legal doubt the values and traditions of our own society should be maintained in the decisions, thereby furthering a dialogue between the national courts and the European one. The Strasbourg Court has also developed a principle of the national courts' ``margin of appreciation''. But there seems to be a tendency of narrowing the area of this dialogue and this margin. From a national standpoint one has thus to pay a certain price for a judicial review based on an international court's interpretation. The various national cultures represented on the bench in Strasbourg may tend to place different views on the reading of the convention. In some cases the national legal circles may find themselves astonished--even somewhat angry--when they experience that established national practice suddenly is considered to be in breach of human rights. However, in my view this is a price one has to pay as contribution to a system that implies building of guarantees for individuals all over Europe. There is the risk that one will have to import certain legal elements that are foreign to national legal thinking. But the gain is great for the people in Europe as a whole--not the least in east Europe-- seen in relation to the core elements of the rights, such as fair trial and freedom of the press. A legal thriller in the years to come will be the Supreme Court's use of the two United Nations Covenants that is incorporated in addition to the European Convention, also with priority over ordinary legislation. When incorporating also the Covenants--with such priority--Norway has taken a step further than most European states. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is much of the same composition as the European Convention, whereas the one on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights contains provisions dealing in general terms with many areas of society, including workplace, health and social services, as well as education. Before the Act was passed, some critics complained that incorporation of this convention into national law would mean that the courts were responsible for the use of resources in these areas, particularly since the rights are formulated in such vague terms. Take for instance Article 9 that recognizes the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance, or Article 13, which stipulates that higher education, shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means. There are likewise other rules, which formulate what the covenant itself terms as ``rights.'' The national courts have certainly been given considerable responsibility in this connection. The court interpretation will decide whether the rather broad formulas are to be read primarily as political guidelines--as political aims--or as legal means constituting individual rights. The civil rights in the Constitution have usually been named ``citizens' rights'', but can also be invoked by non- citizens in our courts. After World War II it became a question to what extent German war criminals were protected by the constitutional guarantees. In a famous case the Supreme Court found that the constitutional guarantees should not be interpreted in the normal strict sense when applied to enemies who broke into the country and committed crimes in breach of international law. One of the dissenting justices warned strongly against this reasoning and looked back to the beginning of the nineteenth century when the Constitution was drafted. ``The Constitution'', he said, ``was created in a period of war and revolution--nor was terrorism unknown.'' In his opinion, which later on is considered as a proud expression of Norwegian rule of law, he underlined that the individual rights--the civil rights--have their primary importance particularly in difficult and extraordinary situations. Today the general opinion in Norwegian legal circles would be in conformity with this minority opinion fifty years ago. One would say that human rights are--according to European thinking--the travelling companions that support every human being, from the first cry to the last sigh. In my official farewell speech in the Court earlier this year I said that human rights protect not only ordinary citizens, but also fraudulent taxpayers, even terrorists. The decision related to war criminals concerned the use of death penalty, which we later eliminated. One of the additional protocols to the European Convention declares that this penalty shall be abolished. As a representative of the Supreme Court in meetings in China with Chinese colleagues I have on several occasions emphasized this principle. I have then used the wording--when explaining our position--that we consider the death penalty to belong to a stage in development of society that one nowadays should have passed. This protocol--which is now law of the land--will probably prohibit the executive from extraditing a foreign criminal, even a terrorist, if he or she will be under a threat of death penalty in the foreign court. Now a concluding observation drawn on around a hundred and fifty years of constitutional review and a few years of convention based review. Even though the review principle has encountered resistance at times, both in Parliament and in public debate, it has slowly taken root over the generations as an important element in the three branches of government. Today we are witnessing a new leap forward for international human rights. We may all take part in that process. This is a field of law where all citizens have an important function: to advance profound analyses, constructive debates and fair solutions.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I call the attention of my colleagues to an excellent statement recently made before a hearing of the Committee on Government Reform dealing with the issue of child vaccinations. The statement was made by Ms. Sandy Mintz of Anchorage, Alaska. For over a decade, Ms. Mintz has been a prominent and forceful advocate for an informed vaccination process and for permitting parents everywhere to have the right, as they do in my home state of California, to decide whether or not vaccination is the best option for their child. Although Ms. Mintz' statement will be published in the hearing record, it will be some time before it is available to my colleagues, and her testimony is of such interest that I ask that it be put in the Record so that it will be more broadly and more quickly available for those who have an interest in the health and well-being of our children. Mr. Speaker, in her testimony, Ms. Mintz posed a vital, if uncomfortable, question: in some cases, could vaccinating our children actually be doing them more harm than good? Specifically, she was asking whether the National Institutes of Health had investigated the link between child vaccinations and autism. She has found evidence that there may, in fact, be a causal link between childhood vaccinations and autism. The witness from the NIH was not aware of any study exploring any link between those two phenomena. Given the vital relevance of this matter to the health of our nation's children, it would be prudent for the NIH to conduct such a study. At the crux of this debate lie two competing values, which must always be kept in balance: on the one hand, the right of parents to determine what is best for their children, and on the other the need of society at large to protect itself from a common threat, in this instance the threat of deadly communicable diseases. But it is more than an example of the classic tension between the rights of the individual and those of society, because the issue at hand is one we all care so deeply about--the issue of our children's safety. We would all like to inoculate our children against every disease possible, and mandatory childhood inoculations may indeed be the soundest policy choice for our state governments. Mr. Speaker, I believe the question raised in Ms. Mintz' testimony needs to be dealt with, because our government should not administer a cure that is worse than the disease. We must first investigate whether vaccinations cause autism in children before we can continue to require them of our children. In the meantime, I believe it would be prudent to allow parents to choose not to vaccinate their children, as is permitted in my home state of California. Again, I thank Ms. Mintz for her bold and illuminating testimony before the Committee on Government Reform. The Autism Epidemic--Is the NIH and CDC Response Adequate? Mr. Shays. Dr. Foote and Dr. Boyle, let me just say it is our intention to let you get out pretty soon. You haven't had a break or anything. Do you have 20 more minutes in you? Are you OK? I am going to do something that may seem a little unusual, and I may have to just cut it off if it is not a good idea. But, Dr. Foote and Dr. Boyle, if you can trust me in terms of my ability to control a meeting, it is not lost on me that we have a lot of people in the audience who have a keen direct interest. There my be a question or two that none of us on the panel here have asked that we should have. I am going to ask if there is someone in the audience who may have a question that says we should have addressed this. I will allow you to stand up and tell the committee, and then we may choose, our committee may choose to ask that question. My motivation is that it would be a shame to have people leave without you having the opportunity to respond and maybe clear something up. Both of you have such a nice, friendly smile. I figured I could get away with it. So we are going to try it out, but I have the counsel--excuse me, the minority counsel would like to ask you a few questions, the majority professional staff would just like to ask a few more, and then I am going to just throw it out to the audience, pick two or three of you and ask you to stand and tell me if there is a question you think we should have asked, loud enough so I can repeat it to our witnesses. . . . Mr. Shays. Now let me state what I would like to do. I would like let our witnesses leave soon. I would like to just say that this is a hearing of the House of Representatives, of Congress, so the decorum needs to be done well. I am going to first ask how many people would like to ask the question. I am going to invite five people to take each of those five seats. I am going to invite you, Ma'am, in the front row to come up to that seat up there, yes. I am going to invite you in the very back to come up, the very back there. I am going to invite you, sir, to come up. I am going to invite you, Ma'am, in the middle, and I am going to invite you in the very back there. I am going to have you each take a seat. What I am going to invite each of you to do, the committee is going to invite each of you, you are just going to go down and you are going to identify your name, as you ask the question, where you live. If you have a loved one who is impacted, we are happy to have you share the name of your child, but this is primarily for an opportunity to ask a question. We will just see how it goes.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to my dear friend, Preben Munch-Nielsen, who passed away a few days ago in Denmark. Preben Munch-Nielsen was born in 1926 to a Protestant family in a small Danish fishing village, Snekkersten. He was only 14 when German troops occupied Denmark in 1940. Munch-Nielsen soon became a courier in the Danish Resistance movement, and began helping Danish Jews flee persecution and certain death at the hands of the Nazi's. He continually risked his life by hiding Jewish refugees in churches and houses near the shore of the North Sea. At night, he would lead them to fishing boats, which took them across the sea to safety in neutral Sweden. Twelve at a time, the Jews would sail in 21-foot boats to freedom. The four-mile boat ride to Sweden could take hours, as Munch-Nielsen and other Resistance members evaded German ships at sea. Munch-Nielsen personally helped to transport 1,400 refugees, and of the country's 7,200 Jews, the Resistance movement saved all but 60 people. The Resistance also saved 700 people of non-Jewish decent, who could not bear to part with Jewish relatives. Munch-Nielsen himself had to take refuge in Sweden when the Germans replaced the Danish government in 1943. He returned home in May 1945. Munch-Nielsen did not speak publicly about the rescues until 1985, when a friend asked him to share his story with a group of Jewish travelers in Denmark. He did not understand why people would make such a fuss over simple acts of decency, yet he knew his deeds should no longer be kept in secrecy. At age 59, his speaking career began, educating masses of people in Denmark, Israel and the United States about the hardships of perseverance and the atrocities of war. He emphasized that Danish Jews were considered as neighbors, friends, and schoolmates, and not as a separate group or as criminals. ``This is our history. We have no scapegoats. No pogroms. No Holocaust. It's so simple; we didn't recognize Jews as Jews, but as Danes,'' Preben Munch- Nielsen said. ``They were victims of an insane movement created by lunatics.'' Preben Munch-Nielsen was also a successful Danish businessman who was honored for his wartime heroic actions by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize and commend Mr. Imre Kert[eacute]sz, on being the first Hungarian to win a Nobel Prize for Literature. Although he is the first Hungarian to receive the Prize for Literature, Mr. Kert[eacute]sz joins twelve other distinguished Hungarians who have been awarded the Nobel Prize in other fields. Mr. Kert[eacute]sz is a celebrated author whose stories have brought to life the atrocities of the Holocaust, and have shared with the world the difficult choices people were forced to make when their lives were torn apart by Nazi occupation. Imre Kert[eacute]sz was born in Budapest, Hungary in 1929. At the age of 14 the Nazis invaded his country, and he, along with hundreds of thousands of other Hungarian Jews were deported to suffer the unspeakable horrors of Auschwitz and other camps. After a short time Mr. Kert[eacute]sz was transported to Buchenwald, another camp, from which he was liberated in 1945. Upon his return to Hungary he worked for a Budapest newspaper, but was dismissed in 1951, when it was taken over by the Communist Party. After two years of military service he supported himself as an independent writer and translator of German authors including Nietzsche, Hofmannsthal, Schnitzler, Freud, Roth, Wittgenstein and Canetti, all of whom have had significance for his own writing. Mr. Kert[eacute]sz's first novel, ``Fateless,'' was completed in 1965, but was not published for another ten years. It was this novel that the Swedish Academy singled out in awarding Mr. Kert[eacute]sz the 2002 Nobel Prize for Literature. This extraordinary novel is the semi- autobiographical tale utilizing Kert[eacute]sz's alter ego Gy[ouml]rgy K[ouml]ves, a 15 year-old Jewish boy who has been arrested and sent to a concentration camp. Once there he becomes intimately aware of the horrors of the death camp, but he learns to survive. ``Fateless,'' was the first part of the trilogy that included the outstanding novels ``Fiasco,'' published in 1988, and ``Kaddish for a Child Not Born,'' published in 1990. Both books continue to use Gy[ouml]rgy K[ouml]ves as the voice for Imre Kert[eacute]sz. In addition, Mr. Kert[eacute]sz's published works include ``Galley Diary,'' ``Chronicle of a Metamorphosis,'' ``The Holocaust as Culture,'' ``Moments of Silence While the Execution Squad Reloads,'' and ``The Exiled Language,'' as well as a collections of lectures and essays. Mr. Speaker, despite having been a published author for more than 30 years, Imre Kert[eacute]sz was not widely recognized internationally until the early 1990's, and his is not even a household name in Hungary today. Mr. Kert[eacute]sz believes that this lack of recognition is a result of a lack of awareness about the Holocaust in Hungary. As he told reporters after the announcement on October 10, 2002, ``People [in Hungary] have not faced up to the Holocaust. I hope that in light of this recognition, they will face up to it more than they have until now.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating Imre Kert[eacute]sz for receiving the Nobel Prize in Literature. His writing shares the fragile experience of the individual against the barbaric arbitrariness of history with stirring stories that have drawn in and captivated readers around the world.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I wish to end my part in this great debate as I began in tribute to the patriotism of every Member of this body and with special thanks to my dear friend and distinguished counterpart on the Republican side, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), a combat veteran of World War II. Over the course of the last 2 days, my colleagues have expressed many different views, but all have affirmed their commitment to safeguard our national security, to pursue peace and to wage war only as a very last resort. The depth and dignity of the debate is worthy of this great subject and of our great democracy. At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend our Democratic leader, my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). In the proud tradition of that great Republican Senator, Arthur Vanderberg, half a century ago, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) transcends parties and politics to craft and champion a bipartisan resolution that best serves the interest of our Nation. His leadership has been a true profile in courage. Mr. Speaker, as our debate has shown, none deny the danger posed by Saddam Hussein. We differ only in the means of addressing this mounting threat; and in doing so, we grapple with two paradoxes. The first is the paradox of peace: Faced with an implacable and belligerent foe, how do we avert war? The answer, as our resolution affirms, lies not in disavowing the use of force, but in authorizing it. It is only when the Iraqi dictator is certain of our willingness to wage war, if necessary, that peace becomes possible. Saddam, like his mentor, Stalin, and all dictators, recoils before strength and pounces on weakness. The second paradox, Mr. Speaker, is the paradox of leadership. Faced with skepticism from some friends and timid bystanders, how do we form the broadest possible coalition to confront Saddam? Publicly, few nations have responded to our call to arms against Iraq. Privately, as I have learned in innumerable meetings with heads of state, foreign ministers and ambassadors from the Arab world and beyond, the United States enjoys strong support. Bridging the divide between public opposition and private support requires that the United States assert leadership. Our joint resolution will demonstrate to the world our steadfast resolve. It will convince others that joining us is the best hope for securing peace. If we show the courage to lead, others will follow. To preserve peace, we must authorize force. To build support, we must be prepared to lead. Our resolution resolves these paradoxes and represents the best means of averting war and of marshaling international cooperation. It is for these reasons that I urge support for our bipartisan resolution. Mr. Speaker, in moments we will be casting our vote and we will make history. In so doing, we dare not repeat the history of the last century, a history characterized too often by appeasement and inaction in the face of tyranny. It is a history that should haunt all of us. Let us cast a vote in favor of this resolution. It will be a vote for American leadership. It will be a vote for peace.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride in his judgment, wisdom and statesmanlike leadership that I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on International Relations for yielding me time. First, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my good friend from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), one of the most valued of this House, on a very thoughtful and creative amendment. I believe, however, that the amendment would weaken the hand of our Secretary of State in international negotiations that are occurring as we speak. Every Member of this body prefers a diplomatic and peaceful solution. Every Member of this body prefers to have as many nations, friends, allies and others come with us as possible. But to enhance the prospects for a peaceful solution, both the Security Council and Saddam Hussein must perceive that diplomatic failure will lead to military action. This amendment fails to convey that critical message. Mr. Speaker, the Spratt amendment requires the President to certify ``that the use of military force against Iraq will not impair international cooperation in the fight against terrorism.'' This amendment effectively asks the President of the United States to certify the unknowable. The initial impact of action in Iraq on international cooperation is uncertain. It may be argued that it will diminish it or it will enhance it. But one thing we are all certain of: Once Iraq is disarmed, international cooperation against terrorism will skyrocket, and international terrorism itself will have been dealt a severe blow. While the principles behind the amendment and the underlying text have some similarities, I must oppose the amendment, Mr. Speaker, because I believe at this stage we must support the bipartisan- bicameral agreement reached with the White House. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this well-intentioned amendment. It would unravel the agreement which is on the verge of ratification, and it would undermine our goal of speaking with a strong and united voice.

Mr. LANTOS. I want to thank my friend, chairman of the committee, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend my friend and colleague from California for her active and valuable contribution to the work of the Committee on International Relations and to the work of this House. I appreciate the views of my colleague from California and I share her view that we must exhaust all diplomatic and peaceful means for disarming Saddam Hussein, and we all agree that war can be only our very last resort. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the joint resolution before us supports the diplomatic process at the United Nations and it requires the President to exhaust all peaceful means before resorting to war. Our distinguished Secretary of State, Colin Powell, is working nonstop at the United Nations to move towards a peaceful and diplomatic resolution of this crisis, and I fully support Secretary Powell's efforts. However, Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that our diplomacy will achieve its purpose only if the Iraqi regime knows that a sword of Damocles hangs over its head. Our joint bipartisan resolution represents that statement of resolve. I am also concerned that my friend's amendment disregards the very serious threat posed by Iraqi sponsorship of international terrorism, clearly a serious danger to the security and safety of the United States. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the bipartisan and bicameral agreement reached with the White House is approaching a final decision in both the House and the Senate. Our chances of obtaining the support of friends and allies will be dramatically increased by our show of decisiveness and unity in this House. This is not the time to unravel an agreement that is on the verge of ratification. It is for these and many other reasons that I regretfully and respectfully oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my San Francisco neighbor and dear friend, our distinguished whip, a person of extraordinary talents and qualifications.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished ranking member of our Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), a senior member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a respected member of our caucus.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), our distinguished chairman of the Democratic Caucus. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the ranking member, distinguished senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my dear friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to my good friend, 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 yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther). (Mr. LUTHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I know I speak for all of my colleagues across the political aisle in paying tribute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), one of the true military heroes serving currently in the Congress of the United States. Here is a man who participated in battles, knows the tragedy of war, but also understands that while war is horrible, appeasement brings far greater tragedies. Before yielding to one of our most distinguished Members, I would like to pay tribute to every colleague yesterday who participated in this debate. The debate, Mr. Speaker, took place in a dignified, statesman-like, serious manner as befits the topic; and I want to pay tribute to every single Republican and Democratic colleague who took part in yesterday's debate, and I know today's debate will be similar in tone and tenor. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my dear friend and one of the most distinguished Members of this body and one of the leaders on the Democratic side.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), our good friend and distinguished colleague.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 7 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), one of our leaders in the field of foreign policy and national security.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), a valued member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a valued member of the Committee on International Relations.