Tom Lantos

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), my good friend and our distinguished colleague. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), my good friend and distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that a decision should be made now. We do not know whether the allotted time is sufficient or not. If the allotted time is not sufficient, I can assure the gentleman I will not change my mind and I will request an extension of time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we have any problem on our side of the aisle. I have asked unanimous consent to yield half of the time I control to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) who, during the deliberations of the Committee on International Relations, voted no on the resolution; and he is the highest-ranking Member on the Democratic side to vote in such a manner. We are perfectly satisfied with time allocation on this side.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I believe we now need to proceed with the debate. I do not yield.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we begin a great debate, whether to grant our President the authority to use armed force against the threat posed to our Nation by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. All of us who engage in this debate are patriots. All of us are deeply committed to safeguarding our national security, to promoting peace, and to waging war only as the very last resort. All of us weigh our words and cast our vote in accordance with the dictates of our conscience; and we are, therefore, deserving of each other's respect. Some argue that the outcome of this debate is predetermined. It is not. Although the language of this joint resolution may undergo little change and its passage is all but assured, the level of support it will command is far from certain. Will this debate demonstrate to the world this Nation's steadfast resolve, or our lingering doubts? Will it solidify our national unity, or expose national divisions? The answers to these crucial questions are far from predetermined. It is with this in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I rise in strong support of this historic resolution, and I urge my colleagues to join me. In managing this debate with my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), I am committed not only to passing this joint resolution, but to securing for it the broadest possible support; for I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is through a strong show of support for this joint resolution that war can best be avoided. Against such an implacable foe as Saddam Hussein, peace can only be achieved through strength, the strength of conviction as much as the strength of arms. It is only when the Iraqi dictator is certain of our resolve and of our ability that peace becomes possible. The strategic importance of this vote is undeniable, Mr. Speaker. We do not have the luxury of considering this issue in splendid isolation. The whole world is watching, and it will measure the resolve of the United States by the outcome of this debate. Let the People's house seize this opportunity to lead. Mr. Speaker, in debating this issue, I am haunted by history. As a young man resisting the Nazis in my native Hungary during the Second World War, I experienced firsthand the ravages of both air and ground war. The murderous shriek of dive bombers, the thunderous rumbling of panzers still reverberate in my memory. I know all too well the painful human costs of war, the lives lost, the families broken, the homes destroyed, the dreams shattered. I abhor war in the way only a survivor and the grandfather of 17 can. But, Mr. Speaker, if the costs of war are great, the costs of inaction and appeasement are greater still. Had the United States and its allies confronted Hitler earlier, had we acted sooner to stymie his evil designs, the 51 million lives needlessly lost during that war could have been saved. Just as leaders and diplomats who appeased Hitler at Munich in 1938 stand humiliated before history, so will we if we appease Saddam Hussein today. To grasp the consequences of our choice, I urge my colleagues to consider two futures: first, imagine a future in which Iraq continues to build its arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Wielding such weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein not only assures his own survival, but rises to preeminence in the Arab world. Within Iraq, Saddam intensifies his brutal repression of the Iraqi people and crushes all internal opposition. Beyond Iraq, Saddam Hussein seizes new territory, intimidates his neighbors into submission, and blackmails the United States and our allies. At the same time, terrorists sharing his anti-American hatred find refuge and resources under his wing. Now, I ask my colleagues to imagine a different future based on the alternative that Saddam Hussein is disarmed, is discredited, and falls from power. With strong material and moral support from the United States and the entire international community, Iraq could emerge as a beachhead of democracy and a beacon of hope in the Arab world. The Iraqi people are freed from the yoke of repression and Baghdad reclaims its greatness as a center of enlightened learning. And the Middle East emerges from the dark shadows of Saddamism. The choice is clear, Mr. Speaker. We must not allow Saddam's forces of repression to triumph over the forces of liberation. We must not allow tyranny to triumph over freedom. We must not allow fear to triumph over hope. Although the choice is clear, Mr. Speaker, the course we may be forced to take is not easy. Despite our best efforts, the United States may be forced to act without the unanimous consent of the international community. Let me remind ourselves that in 1981 the Israelis attacked Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak. Although the strike was condemned by contemporaries, it is now applauded by history. If Congress provides only tepid support for this joint resolution, fear may indeed triumph over hope. Saddam Hussein will undoubtedly seize upon U.S. indecision to divide the international community, to evade inspectors and to continue his deceptions while pursuing his clandestine weapons programs unabated. Weakness in the face of this mounting threat only plays into Saddam Hussein's grand strategy. Many of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, fear that the President seeks to implement a new and untested doctrine of military intervention in Iraq. They fear that a dangerous precedent will be set should we authorize the use of force. I disagree. It is not the application of the doctrine of preemption we are considering here. We are dedicating U.S. power and prestige to upholding, not challenging, international law. We are devoting our efforts to strengthening, not weakening, the international system. Saddam Hussein and his henchmen are the international outlaws breaking their obligations while suppressing their own people. Others of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, fear the implications of the United States acting without the blessing of the United Nations. But let us recall 1998, when we were confronted with a similar challenge to the international order, but the United Nations remained divided. To prevent genocide in Kosovo and strategic instability in the Balkans, President Clinton led the United States and our NATO allies to victory against Milosevic. Today the people of Kosovo live in peace, Serbia holds democratic elections, and in the Hague, Milosevic stands on trial for war crimes. Mr. Speaker, for many of the same reasons our Nation acted in Kosovo, today we must act in Iraq. Saddam Hussein's brutal repression of the Iraqi people is a crime against humanity. His stubborn defiance of the United Nations is an affront to the civilized world, and his diabolical drive to develop weapons of mass destruction is a danger to the United States and to world peace. Let us be clear. We seek to preserve peace, not to provoke war; we seek to maintain international order, not to disrupt it. In doing so, we seek the support of our friends and allies. I support the President's decision to challenge the United Nations to enforce the Security Council resolutions Iraq has flagrantly and repeatedly violated. If the U.N. seizes this opportunity, it could prove to be its finest hour. The joint resolution before us is the best assurance that the international community may indeed rise to this challenge. Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein represents the antithesis of freedom and is the principal antagonist in a struggle unfolding in the Middle East; and the United States, I believe, is destined to be a principal protagonist in this struggle. The great debate we begin today represents the opening act of a drama that promises to define the 21st century. Each of us was elected to engage in just such a debate. Only in a democracy are the people, through their chosen representatives, entrusted with their own security. Only in a democracy must the protectors answer to those they protect. Only in a democracy must the Commander in Chief come to Congress in exercising military power. Debating war and peace as we do this day is the essence of democracy. Many different views will be heard during the course of our debate. Let no one, Saddam Hussein especially, confuse debate with disunity. The ability to debate freely, but unite ultimately, is the hallmark of democracy. It is a source of strength, not of weakness. Mr. Speaker, in debating this joint resolution, I urge all of my colleagues to consider the consequences of our decision. They will be felt far beyond the confines of this Chamber. Should we unite in strong opposition to Saddam Hussein, history will reward us. If we fail to do so, history will haunt us. A future of hope, or a future of fear hangs in the balance. I am confident that we shall make the right choice. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, let me first commend my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his powerful and brilliantly reasoned statement. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that one-half of my time be allocated to my good friend and our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and that he may be permitted to control that time and yield it to others.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), my good friend and colleague, a leader in the field of national security.

Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), a member of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I would merely like to suggest to all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that, should the allotted time be insufficient to deal with this issue, in the event some Members feel that they have not had an opportunity to express their views, I want to serve notice that I will request under unanimous consent to extend the debate. I think this is a significant historic debate. No Member of this body should be deprived of the opportunity to express his views. So I want to assure my colleague that, should the initially allotted time to both sides prove insufficient, it is the intention of this gentleman to request additional time so that every Member will have an opportunity to express his or her views. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that one-half of my time be yielded to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and that he be allowed to further allocate that time.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5531--the Sudan Peace Act. I do so with some disappointment. The bill we consider today transmitted from the other body was stripped of its most potent provisions--full disclosure requirement and potential capital market sanctions for corporations doing business in Sudan and thereby contributing to the suffering of the people of southern Sudan. The United States delegation in Khartoum, ably led be former Senator John Danforth, has made tremendous strides in settling this conflict in recent months, even bringing the warring parties to the negotiating table in Machakos, Kenya. But as diplomats talks, the assaults on civilians in the rich oil-producing areas continue. This is appalling. The National Islamic Front leaders in Khartoum have mastered the art of putting a good face on bad faith negotiations--and the removal of capital market sanctions provisions from this bill allows them to continue this deadly ruse with impunity. Had the other body approved the House version of the Sudan Peace Act and preserved these punitive provisions, I believe this could have dealt a major blow to Khartoum's ambitions to dominate and impose sharia religious law on the people of the South. Sudan is suffering through the longest running civil war in the world, contributing to the displacement, depravation and death of millions of Sudanese. It is estimated that more than two million Sudanese have died from war-related causes since 1983. An estimated four million Sudanese are internally displaced, with two million living in squatter areas of Khartoum. More than three million Sudanese will require emergency food aid this year, according to the World Food Program. Famine is a constant. Desite recent peace efforts, the devastating attacks on southern civilians have continued. Aid agencies in southern Sudan reported that, in September 2002 alone, government bombing in several key regions killed over 32 people including a 13-year old boy, four small children, and a family of six. These killings do not even include all bombing incidents during the September war. Khartoum has been helpful to the U.S. government in tracking down Al Qaeda operatives and its financial assets, and through its cooperation to combat terrorism, has gained greater prominence with the U.S. Nevertheless, Khartoum's cooperation has been accompanied by continued bombardment of the southern Sudanese people who simply yearn to live freely. Khartoum's actions raise doubts about it's honest commitment to peace. Last month, the Sudanese government walked away from the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD)-sponsored Machakos negotiations in Kenya after accusing the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) of engaging in offensive military activity. Indeed, in retaliation to government bombings and ground offensives in Western Upper Nile, the SPLA captured Torit, the capital of Eastern Equatoria. Despite its shortcomings, the Sudan Peace Act does contain a number of helpful provisions. This new bill authorizes $3 million per year over three years to help build civil institutions in non-government controlled areas and community services in health and education. It also includes a certification program whereby the President is obliged to certify in six-month intervals whether the Sudanese government and Sudanese People's Liberation Movement are negotiating peace in good faith. It is necessary that we live up to the terms of the Danforth Report and in particular reinforce all efforts to protect civilians from harm. In addition to the provisions of this legislation, I strongly urge the President to add immediately a human rights monitoring component to the U.S. Civilian Protection Monitoring Team based in Khartoum and human rights monitors in the Nuba Mountains to monitor the ceasefire and access of humanitarian organizations to the Nuba people. We are at a critical stage in Sudan's terrible civil war. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation for the fine work of my staffer, Dr. Pearl Alice Marsh, who through her exceptional knowledge of African affairs made a substantial and important contribution to this bill. If the peace talks are allowed to fail, then millions more Sudanese will face destruction. We may witness the prospect of yet another decade of civil war. We cannot let this happen. I hope the initiatives that will come out of H.R. 5531 will move Sudan toward true peace. If this fails, the U.S. government will be required to consider taking more serious actions toward Khartoum.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in urging adoption of House Resolution 468, which expresses the support of the House for the enlargement of NATO that is planned for the Prague Summit later this fall. Millions of Americans of Central and East European descent share that view, as they demonstrated since the NATO expansion of 1999, when Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were invited to become members of the North Atlantic Alliance. They--and most other Americans-- recognize that a vital U.S. foreign policy interest will be served by continuing to expand the zone of democracy and stability in Europe. I have been and remain a strong proponent of NATO enlargement to include those countries that have demonstrated their commitment to democratic reforms, including full protection of minority rights of the diverse ethnic communities that live in these countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Mr. Speaker, I want to mention a particular interest and concern regarding minority rights of two large historic Hungarian communities-- the 1.5 million Hungarians in Romania and the 520,000 in Slovakia. The major unresolved issue affecting the minority communities of both countries is the continued postponement of the implementation of laws for restitution and/or compensation for communal property confiscated from Hungarian religious and educational institutions. Although both Romania and Slovakia have taken important steps to address this critical question of property restitution, progress has been both slow and disappointingly limited. Mr. Speaker, I urge both countries to pursue restitution more vigorously in the coming months, until fair and complete restitution is implemented according to the rule of law. Only by the safeguarding of religious and minority rights and freedoms will the NATO zone of stability be extended to nations that share a demonstrated commitment to democracy and a true community of values. I urge the governments of Romania and Slovakia to work to resolve these important issues, and I urge all of the countries who seek admission to the North Atlantic Alliance to remember that we in the United States consider treatment of ethnic minorities as an important measure of a democratic society.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2121, the Russia Democracy Act, and thank the co-sponsors of this bill for their support. In drafting this legislation, I sought to enhance United States democracy, good governance and anti-corruption efforts in order to strengthen civil society and independent media in Russia. Cultivating civil society in Russia and knitting together its patch- work democracy is not only a goal of U.S. policy--it is an imperative. Unless we redouble our efforts to strengthen democratic reform in Russia--as this bill seeks to do--our former adversary may yet return to authoritarian rule and challenge our national security. The Russia Democracy Act expands upon U.S. initiatives that have proven successful in Russia. Among other things, it provides further support for local democratic governments through the Regional Initiative; expands training for Russian journalists in investigative techniques designed to ferret our corruption; and it broadens successful U.S.-Russia cultural exchanges, such as those sponsored by the Library of Congress. As Russia becomes more democratic and our foreign policies become more closely aligned in the war against international terrorism, it is important that the U.S. seize upon the opportunity to facilitate Russia's integration into the West. The Russia Democracy Act is designed to achieve this goal. This bill launches a number of initiatives to take advantage of new developments in Russian society over the past decade, and harnesses new information technologies to provide Internet access to Russian citizens, independent media and NGOs. And it engages the growing network of local, independent media outlets to spread democratic principles working in partnership with such stalwarts of democracy as Radio Liberty and Voice of America. Deepening our engagement with Russia's civil society is critical to its survival. At the same time we must stand ready to defend against Moscow's attempts to undermine it. Following September 11th, President Putin made a courageous decision to make common cause with the Western democracies in defeating terrorism. But recent decisions by Putin to embrace Iraq, Iran and North Korea, and his continued attempt to intimidate free media in Russia, threatens to jeopardize our new partnership. Just last week, President Putin revoked a decree issued by his predecessor that allowed Radio Liberty to establish a bureau in Russia and provided the broadcaster with certain privileges. Radio Liberty, which is supported in part by the U.S. government, may now be subject to Russia's restrictive media laws. The right of Radio Liberty to broadcast in Russia is no longer guaranteed. Although some in Russia argue that this was done to level the playing field for all broadcasters, the Putin Administration has been known to apply the law selectively, as the cases of NTV and Ekho Moskvy make clear. I condemn this decision, and urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring Radio Liberty does not suffer the fate of Russia's other independent news organizations. Having lived under both fascist and communist rule, I am painfully aware of the importance of this legislation. As a teenager living in Hungary during the Second World War, I recall fondly the inspirational and liberating broadcasts of the Voice of America, and can testify personally to the dramatic effect these radio programs had in providing hope to a captive people. To keep Russia on track toward westward integration, surrogate broadcasting such as Radio Liberty is critical. I am also pleased that the bill includes an important provision to provide for an endowment to preserve the Andrei Sakharov archives. Without Mr. Sakharov's contribution to peace, human rights, and democracy, the unprecedented change that took place in Russia in the last decade of the previous century would never have happened. These documents are important not only to study the transition from tyranny to democracy in Russia, but will also help activists and scholars from countries around the world understand how a society moves from bondage to freedom. Therefore, I welcome this provision, which authorizes a grant to Brandeis University for an endowment to support the archives and the related human rights center. I realize it is extraordinary for U.S. appropriated funds to be used to fund an endowment, where such funds can use interest earned from U.S. funds to support the program. However, because of the importance of these archives and this center, I believe it is appropriate in this case. Finally, because of the wide- ranging importance of these documents, I believe it would be appropriate for funds from the Foreign Assistance Act to be used for this noble undertaking. I also note that the bill also contains a very important provision on Burma human rights that ensures that UNDP assistance to Burma is properly utilized, fully coordinated with the Burmese opposition and carried out only with NGO's. I would also like to acknowledge the exceptional work of my staffer, Tanya Mazin, on this important legislation. Tanya's deep and personal knowledge of Russia and its people was critical to the success of Congressional consideration of the Russia Democracy Act. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the U.S. Congress, I believe our interests and values demand that we cultivate civil society in Russia. It will not happen over night, but over time--with strong support form the United States and our democratic allies--I am confident it will. Passage of the Russia Democracy Act is a step in this direction, and a step I urge my colleagues to take.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues in the Congress to join me in marking a century of service as San Mateo High School celebrates its 100th anniversary. Mr. Speaker, a century ago, the city of San Mateo and the rest of the Peninsula looked dramatically different than they do today. At its creation, the first high school in the San Mateo Union High School District required only three teachers to educate the fourteen students who attended the school, which was housed in a three-bedroom cottage. During the next twenty-five years of its existence, San Mateo High School moved three times, finally settling into its present location on Delaware Street, in San Mateo, California, in 1927. Like the rest of the Peninsula, the school has witnessed exceptional growth during the last one hundred years, and today San Mateo High School boasts an enrollment of 1,425 ethnically and socially diverse students. It is that remarkable diversity, that is a major part of what makes San Mateo High School a great institution of learning. According to the most recent figures, the school includes African American, Hispanic, Caucasian, Filipino, Asian American, Pacific Islander, and Native American students. Mr. Speaker, in addition to this melting pot of American students, San Mateo High School's student body also includes many international students. For many years the school participated in the American Field Service's exchange student program. This program facilitates international understanding by sending American students to study abroad, and bringing foreign students to study in the United States. A testimony of the success of San Mateo High School's commitment to the benefits of diversity is the fact that at one time the student body was comprised of individuals from 80 different nations. This diversity certainly enriched the educational experience of the pupils and fostered international understanding among its students. As Jacqueline McEvoy, who became the school's 13th principal in 2000, commented, ``it was like walking into a microcosm of the world.'' Mr. Speaker, San Mateo High School and its students have also established an outstanding record of community service. The school was the recipient of international recognition when the Guinness Book of World Records certified that the 214,713 pounds of food collected by the students at the school was the largest food drive ever put together by a non-charitable organization. This extraordinary feat is testament to the intelligence, drive, determination, and commitment to service of the students that make up San Mateo High School. Mr. Speaker, during the past century, San Mateo High School has actively pursued and achieved excellence in academic, vocational, performing arts, and athletic programs. It has provided countless opportunities for the enrichment of students on the Peninsula and around the globe. I am greatly honored to have the privilege of representing this excellent institution in the United States Congress. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 100th anniversary of San Mateo High School.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Mercy High School of San Francisco, located in my congressional district, on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of its founding. Since its inception in 1952, this extraordinary educational institution has dedicated itself to providing the finest education for young women in the Bay area. Mr. Speaker, Mercy High School was founded half a century ago by the Sisters of Mercy, at the request of the San Francisco Archdiocese, in order to create a high school for girls in the growing Sunset, Lakeside, and Park Merced neighborhoods of San Francisco, as well as in communities in northern San Mateo County. Mercy High School has come a long way since it first opened its doors to 199 students in 1952. When Mercy High School was first founded, the school consisted of one partially finished building and was staffed by six Sisters of Mercy and one lay person. Today the school can boast of a student body of 600 students, and they are educated on a campus of six and half acres located in the heart of San Francisco's Sunset District. The meticulously maintained campus includes 22 classrooms, a campus ministry, three science laboratories, a chapel, a 10,000-volume library, two computer labs, and studios for the fine and performing arts. Additionally, the school recently completed the Catherine McAuley Pavilion—a magnificent structure containing state-of-the-art athletic facilities and an outstanding art gallery. Mr. Speaker, Catherine McAuley founded the Sisters of Mercy, a religious order, in Dublin, Ireland in 1831. She was an extraordinary woman who was a socialite turned social worker, a lady of fashion who lived among the poor, a woman of wealth who had no money, and a dedicated activist who learned the discipline of sanctity. Catherine McAuley and her Sisters of Mercy brought aid and comfort to the impoverished of Dublin. Within ten years of its foundation, the Sisters of Mercy had expanded to aid people in other cities in Ireland and in England. In 1843, the first mission was started in the United States, and in 1854, the Sisters of Mercy came to San Francisco. In 1990, in completion of one stage of the process by which the Catholic Church defines sainthood, Pope John Paul II declared Catherine McAuley Venerable. Since its foundation, Mercy High School in San Francisco has dedicated itself to its mission of educating young women to be leaders who make a difference in their church and in their world. The school's fine arts program is one of the most diverse in the entire Bay Area, and the athletic and speech programs have received state level recognition as well. Additionally, Mercy High School's student government has received the Medalist Award, the highest award given by the California Association of Student Councils. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted and honored to pay tribute to this outstanding educational institution, and I invite all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mercy High School on half century of service to the Archdiocese of San Francisco, the Bay Area, and our nation.

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sorrow that I rise today, after learning of the passing of Ambassador Necdet Kent on Friday, September 20, at the age of 91. Ambassador Kent was a Turkish diplomat who served with distinction at many posts. Between 1941 and 1944, he was posted as deputy consul in the Turkish Consulate-General in Marseilles, France. He used that position to bestow Turkish citizenship on--and thereby save--dozens of Turkish Jews who were resident in France and otherwise lacked proper identity papers to prevent their deportation to Nazi gas chambers. Most of those Jews had left Turkey years earlier with no intention of returning but technically had remained Turkish citizens. Necdet Kent exploited their all-but-lapsed Turkish citizenship to stay their execution and spare their lives. On one occasion, Kent boarded a train bound for Auschwitz after Nazi guards refused to honor his demand to allow all its passengers--some 70 Turkish Jews--to disembark. At subsequent stops, Nazi officials tried to persuade Kent to leave the train, assuring him that its passengers were not real Turks but merely Jews. Kent made clear that he and his nation made no such distinction, and he steadfastly refused to disembark without his fellow citizens. Finally, after an hour of effort to dissuade Kent from his course, the Nazi guards gave up. Apparently cautious not to create an international incident in this instance, the Nazis allowed the stunned Jews to leave the train with Kent and with their lives. Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Kent had an uncommon love of humanity and an even more rare combination of moral and physical courage that saved many Jewish lives during the Holocaust. As a Holocaust survivor who was saved by the great Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg, I am constantly mindful that I owe my life to that rare breed of humanity to which Necdet Kent belonged. Although I never had the pleasure of meeting Ambassador Kent, I know from reading his words and seeing him in a documentary released last year that he was a very modest man--excessively so, in my opinion, since his modesty long precluded him from winning the widespread accolades that he so richly deserved. Necdet Kent was so special that he seemed unable to recognize his own extraordinary character. I recall his simple reply when asked how he summoned the courage to defy the Gestapo and board that Nazi cattle car with the 70 Turkish Jews, knowing that he could have been riding to his death. ``I'm a human being,'' he said. ``I couldn't do anything else.'' If only that statement were as true as it is humble, far more diplomats would have had the courage to behave similarly, and countless more lives could have been saved. Happily, towards the end of his life, Ambassador Kent received far more of the tributes and praise he earned, thanks mainly to the aforementioned documentary, called ``Desperate Hours.'' Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Kent leaves this world with the admiration and gratitude of humanitarians, and particularly Jews, everywhere. I avail myself of this opportunity and urge all of my colleagues to join me in expressing deep condolences to the Turkish nation, to Ambassador Kent's family, and to the wider human family to which he belonged, on the loss of one of its noblest representatives--a man who, as a mere deputy consul, truly granted ``visas for life.''

Mr. LANTOS

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of this conference report. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois, for his most gracious words. Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations on bringing this conference report to the floor. Since this matter last came before the House, a myriad of procedural and substantive issues blocked the path of this bill. At every turn, the outstanding leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) brought us closer to our shared goal, and today an important and very substantive bill is before us. Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill blends the very best features of the original House-passed measure and the Senate amendments. The conference report authorizes funds for the conduct of the foreign relations of the United States of America and funds urgent U.S. priorities, such as the security of our embassies abroad, broadcasting to the Middle East and Asia to communicate our values and points of view to foreign audiences, protection of refugees, and scores of other issues. Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Speaker, our bill takes a huge step towards normalizing our relations with the United Nations. It allows payment of our remaining arrears payments to the U.N. and clears our debts with a host of other smaller, but important, international organizations. In addition, our bill includes a new authorization that clears the way for the United States to begin paying our bills on time instead of a year late. Because of late payments, the U.N. has been forced to adopt unsound budgetary practices. Our legislation will help put the United Nations and other international organizations on a proper and businesslike financial footing. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly delighted that the conference report includes language on the reentry of the United States into UNESCO, the United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization. Several of us have been working for years to bring about this result, and I am truly pleased that in his speech before the United Nations on September 12, President Bush added his support for this critical initiative. The conference report now reflects this new consensus, which is truly bipartisan, to rejoin this important organization, so that the voice of the United States will be loud and clear in UNESCO. Our actions are particularly timely, as we are in the midst of working with the United Nations to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions aimed at Iraq. Our bill clearly demonstrates Congress' commitment to multilateralism, and it offers a vote of confidence in the United Nations. It is now time for the United Nations to prove itself worthy of such confidence by defending its principles and enforcing its resolutions. With the passage of this bill, the United States will have done its part. Now the Members of the United Nations Security Council must do theirs. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other important features in this bill, and I would like to highlight some of them. Our bill authorizes U.S. counterterrorism and nonproliferation assistance as well as military assistance to recent and future NATO entrants and some of our key allies in the war against terrorism. The bill also includes a trailblazing initiative to strengthen nonproliferation programs in Russia while retiring that nation's huge Soviet-era debt. Under our initiative, the United States will forgive that debt, and Russia will use the savings to pursue programs, such as securing its stocks of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium from terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism. The bill has numerous important provisions on the Middle East, including the stopping of illegal weapons transfers to the Palestinians and ensuring that the PLO is abiding by the commitments it made almost a decade ago in 1993 to stop the use of violence and to negotiate peacefully. Our bill reaffirms United States policy that Jerusalem is the undivided and eternal capital of the State of Israel. I also note that a compromise provision on Lebanon included in the conference report will create a real incentive for that government to deploy its forces along its own national frontier in areas currently controlled by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization. Our bill provides for new exchange programs for Sudanese oppressed by war and for scientists who conduct research on HIV-AIDS. Our legislation, Mr. Speaker, provides that the Secretary of State should establish programs to train scientists and public policy experts on ethical issues relating to drug trials, allowing governments in developing countries to evaluate any trials by foreign pharmaceutical companies on their citizens. I am particularly pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the conference report contains the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002, legislation I introduced along with my good friends and colleagues, Senator Feinstein, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). This legislation is the first piece of comprehensive Tibet legislation ever enacted in the Congress of the United States, and it will send a strong signal to the Chinese Government that the United States has not forgotten the plight of Tibet and its people. Our legislation will promote human rights and religious freedom in Tibet, and it will ensure the development sponsored by international institutions benefits the people of Tibet. The conference report also contains measures I introduced, along with the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Kennedy) and many others, to help the people of East Timor. After more than 2 decades of brutal Indonesian rule in East Timor and the enormous devastation subsequent to East Timor's vote for independence, our legislation will ensure that East Timor's people get the assistance they need to get back on their feet. In addition, Mr. Speaker, our act provides for ensuring that those who commit crimes against humanity are not treated with impunity. In particular, we provide U.S. funding for the Special Court in Sierra Leone, which will deal with the human rights atrocities from that country's deadly civil war and authorizes a new U.S. rewards program to help apprehend those that the Special Court indicts. Our legislation reauthorizes funding for victims of human trafficking, extends the life of the Commission on International Religious Freedom, and ensures that human rights are more fully integrated into the State Department's policy considerations. Mr. Speaker, this is a major piece of legislation, crafted in a truly bipartisan manner with a great deal of statesmanship on the part of many Members. But I particularly want to pay special tribute to my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his leadership on this most important legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), my good friend and our distinguished colleague.